Standing Committee F

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

Criminal Justice and Police Bill

New Clause 6 - Police directions stopping the harassment etc of a person in his home

`.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a constable who is at the scene may give a direction under this section to any person if— 
 (a) that person is present outside or in the vicinity of any premises that are used by any individual (``the victim'') as his dwelling; 
 (b) that constable believes, on reasonable grounds, that that person is present there for the purpose (by his presence or otherwise) of representing to the victim or another individual (whether or not one who uses the premises as his dwelling), or of persuading the victim or such another individual— 
 (i) that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do; or 
 (ii) that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do; 
 (c) that constable also believes, on reasonable grounds, that the presence of that person (either alone or together with that of any other persons who are also present)— 
 (i) amounts to, or is likely to result in, the harassment of the victim; or 
 (ii) is likely to cause alarm or distress to the victim. 
 (2) A direction under this section is a direction requiring the person to whom it is given to do all such things as the constable giving it may specify as the things he considers necessary to prevent one or both of the following— 
 (a) the harassment of the victim; or 
 (b) the causing of any alarm or distress to the victim. 
 (3) A direction under this section may be given orally; and where a constable is entitled to give a direction under this section to each of several persons outside, or in the vicinity of, any premises, he may give that direction to those persons by notifying them of his requirements either individually or all together. 
 (4) The requirements that may be imposed by a direction under this section include a requirement to leave the vicinity of the premises in question (either immediately or after a specified period of time). 
 (5) A direction under this section may make exceptions to any requirement imposed by the direction, and may make any such exception subject to such conditions as the constable giving the direction thinks fit; and those conditions may include— 
 (a) conditions as to the distance from the premises in question at which, or otherwise as to the location where, persons who do not leave their vicinity must remain; and 
 (b) conditions as to the number or identity of the persons who are authorised by the exception to remain in the vicinity of those premises. 
 (6) The power of a constable to give a direction under this section shall not include— 
 (a) any power to give a direction at any time when there is a more senior-ranking police officer at the scene; or 
 (b) any power to direct a person to refrain from conduct that is lawful under section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (right peacefully to picket a work place); 
 but it shall include power to vary or withdraw a direction previously given under this section. 
 (7) Any person who knowingly contravenes a direction given to him under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or to both. 
 (8) A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant any person he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section. 
 (9) In this section ``dwelling'' has the same meaning as in Part I of the Public Order Act 1986.'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time. 
 Question again proposed.

Jimmy Hood: I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following: Government new clause 7—Malicious communications—
 `.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 (offence of sending letters and other articles with intent to cause distress or anxiety)— 
 (a) in paragraph (a), for ``letter or other article'' there shall be substituted ``letter, electronic communication or article of any description''; and 
 (b) in paragraph (b), for the word ``other article'' there shall be substituted ``article or electronic communication''. 
 (2) In subsection (2) of that section (defence of making a threat in the belief that it was a proper way of reinforcing a demand and that there were reasonable grounds for making that demand)— 
 (a) in paragraph (a), for ``which he believed he had reasonable grounds for making'' there shall be substituted ``made by him on reasonable grounds''; and 
 (b) in paragraph (b), after ``believed'' there shall be inserted ``, and had reasonable grounds for believing,''. 
 (3) After that subsection there shall be inserted— 
 ``(2A) In this section `electronic communication' includes— 
 (a) any oral or other communication by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984); and 
 (b) any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form. 
 (4) In subsection (3) of that section (definition of ``send'')— 
 (a) after ``delivering'' there shall be inserted ``or transmitting''; and 
 (b) for ``or delivered'' there shall be substituted ``, delivered or transmitted''. 
 (5) In subsection (5) of that section (penalty for offence), for ``a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale'' there shall be substituted ``imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both''. 
 (6) Subsection (5) does not affect the penalty for an offence committed before the day on which this Act is passed.'. 
And amendment (a) thereto, at end of subsection (2) insert— 
 `.—``(2ZA) No defence under subsection (2) above is provided where the threat conveyed is a threat of an action which if carried out would be an offence under any other Act.''.'. 
Government new clause 20—Addresses of directors and secretaries of companies. 
 New clause 14—Fear of Violence— 
 `.—Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 shall be amended in subsection(1) by leaving out the words ``on at least two occasions''.'. 
New clause 15—Conspiracy— 
 `.—After section 4 of the Protection for Harassment Act 1997 there shall be inserted the following section— 
 ``Conspiracy 
 4A. Where two or more persons agree to organise or plan the commission by any other persons or by themselves a course of conduct contrary to Section 1 and Section 4 of this Act, they shall be guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977 Section 1.''.'. 
New clause 19—Increase in sentences for hate crimes— 
 `—(1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of any offence. 
 (2) If the offence was aggravated for the purposes of this section, the court— 
 (a) shall treat that fact as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence); and 
 (b) shall state in open court that the offence was so aggravated. 
 (3) An offence is aggravated for the purposes of this section if— 
 (a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's actual or presumed sexual orientation, race, religion, gender or disability; or 
 (b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a group based on their sexual orientation, race, religion, gender or disability or based on their membership of, or association with, such a group.'. 
Government amendments Nos. 176 and 243.

Simon Hughes: Before we adjourned for lunch, I had begun to set out our position on the considerable list of new clauses and amendments currently under our consideration. I had concluded the general description of where we stand in relation to the Government new clauses and amendment (a) to new clause 7, the new clauses tabled by the Conservatives and our new clause. I shall now return—at no great length—to deal with each of those in turn.

Nicholas Lyell: On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I was grateful to receive a letter of apology from the Minister of State following some unexpected and uncharacteristic remarks that he made during a previous sitting when I could not be here. I read what was said and felt that it was out of order and inappropriate; I should be grateful if he would say something about that.

Jimmy Hood: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. What went on in Committee last week is not really a matter for the Chair.

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Hood. The remarks made last week about my right hon. and learned Friend, who is a senior Member of the House, were appalling and extremely rude and gratuitous. If the Minister is prepared to withdraw them, that may well be an end of the matter; but if he is not, we should know that.

James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Hood. If the Minister were prepared to let us know the precise content and nature of the letter of apology written to my right hon. and learned Friend, that in itself would help the Committee to understand his sense of remorse on the subject.

Jimmy Hood: I am unaware of the contents of the letter of apology. Points of order are matters raised with me, and it is for me to rule on them. That is not a valid point of order for me to rule on.

Charles Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Hood. I do not resile for one moment from what I said, but it was wrong of me not to have previously informed the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) that I was going to say it, so I wrote him a letter apologising for not having done so. I have a copy of that letter here, but it is a matter between him and me. If—

Jimmy Hood: Order. The Minister is making a point of information, not a point of order.

Crispin Blunt: On a separate point of order, Mr. Hood.

Jimmy Hood: If it is the same point of order, I have made my ruling and it is out of order.

Crispin Blunt: I thought that I said that it was separate; I certainly intended to. Today, during questions, the Advocate-General for Scotland, with the Parliamentary Secretary sitting alongside her, suggested in reply to a question from me about this Committee's proceedings that the Committee had been filibustering, which is why there needed to be a programming motion—

Jimmy Hood: Order. I am waiting for a point of order. I am hearing an account of a discussion that took place in the House, which is not a matter for the Committee.

Crispin Blunt: My point of order, Mr. Hood, is whether you can direct the Advocate-General that there has been no question of filibustering on this Committee and she should not make such representations to the House.

Jimmy Hood: I am rather flattered that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I could make such a direction. With the greatest respect, it is not for the Chair to make such a direction.

Simon Hughes: I rise slowly, Mr. Hood, just in case.
 I wish to thank those who have written to me, and I presume to other hon. Members, about the issues that we are debating. I, like others, have received letters from individuals and representative organisations, including constituents who work in research science. It is important that we should take account of the views of those who have seen fit to write. It is important, too, that they should know that the voice of the individual does reach Members of Parliament. I am grateful also, as are other hon. Members, for the other comments and briefings that we have received. Some of them were obviously sent by organisations with an interest in the subject, or from people paid by the organisations to do such work. They may have done it in their work time, but their comments have helped to inform our debate. 
 Some of my colleagues—they are not members of the Committee—have forwarded correspondence from constituents who are deeply concerned about the matter. In particular, I acknowledge the continuing interest of my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) in the matter of animal protests. They, like other members of the Committee, have constituency interests: one represents a university city and the other has research facilities in his constituency. 
 Before we adjourned for lunch, I said that it was right to add the Government new clauses, but that we had some concerns about the breadth of their provisions. I asked the Committee to reflect on some of the issues that are not resolved by the clauses before we reach Report. 
 As far as he could, the Minister helpfully set out some of the legislation that governs such matters, although breach of the peace is a matter of common law. This is not a criticism of his failure to do it this morning, but it would help if he would ask his civil servants to set out the relevant statutes that are in place in England and Wales—either at the end of the debate or, even better, in writing, but soon after today's deliberations. 
 When one looks at the remit and the breadth of that legislation, one realises that some of it needs to be amended. For example, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 takes no account of e-mail and modern technology and it obviously needs to be brought up to date. However, civil disobedience and the right to protest are already governed by various statutes as well as public order and breach of the peace legislation, and we need to consider what the limits of that legislation should be.

Charles Clarke: May I clarify exactly what the hon. Gentleman is asking for? Is he asking me to write to the Committee with a list of legislation that is relevant to the matters covered by new clauses 6 and 7 and the Opposition's proposed new clauses, and the extent to which they bear on such situations?

Simon Hughes: That is exactly what I am asking for. It would help, especially when we come to the wider debate on the Floor of the House, to know what the law is at the moment, how it stands and what are the arguments for extending it.
 The bigger debate, often touched on when considering such legislation, is about whether we should limit the right to protest, and whether the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 offer sufficient protection. Sadly, we do not often debate matters in the round. We normally suffer from Parliament reacting to events. That is a perfectly proper task, but sometimes it is better to stand back and think about what the law should be. I hope that the debate does not preclude us from a considered discussion in the near future—it will not be before the general election if that happens soon—on what we need to do to ensure that the right to protest, to speak out and to challenge people with one's views, however uncomfortable, is protected. At the same time, the right to not be harassed should be dealt with, as intimidation is unacceptable. That wide debate is not only about animal rights protests. 
 I would like to clear up our sub-debate about Members of Parliament and elected representatives. I do not argue, and it cannot be easily argued, that Members of Parliament, councillors or other elected representatives should for any reason be in a different position from anyone else. Many people are in public life, some elected, some appointed, and it would be invidious for us to give ourselves a special protection. I do not argue that the debate on the amount of protest that we should be expected to withstand is entirely different from the debate on whether we should be able to keep our addresses secret. I want to flag the issue up. 
 Last year, in the debates on electoral registration reform, we discussed whether people standing for office should be able to keep their names and addresses off the electoral register because they might be harassed or stalked. Again, that was a perfectly proper debate, and we may need to reach conclusions on the matter. My presumption is always that such information should be in the public domain. People should know where those who stand for office and are public servants live. If one is entirely a private citizen, not a public servant and not standing for office, the matter is different. I hope that we always tend towards freedom of information and no great restriction, rather than in the other direction. We should seek to limit the public's right to know and increase privacy only when there is an exceptionally good case for it.

Helen Clark: My hon. Friends did not request that Members of Parliament should have special additional privileges, merely that they should not be excluded from legislation intended to protect the whole community. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that he felt that all the addresses of Members of Parliament should be made public knowledge. I support him in terms of work telephone numbers and addresses, such as those of constituency and Westminster offices. However, I disagree with him about the private addresses and numbers of Members of Parliament, as we also have families.

Simon Hughes: I do not want to be too distracted into that debate, but the hon. Lady was responding to my comments, so I must reply. All the difference in the world applies to private phone numbers that people's families can use. If she, one of my hon. Friends or I decide to stand for office, we do so in the knowledge that we have families, and that our actions will have implications for them. We must not be naive about that. I strongly take the view that where we live is a matter of public interest.

James Gray: Why?

Simon Hughes: Because it is hugely important whether one lives in the constituency or not. Members should always live in their constituencies, and it is a matter of proper public knowledge as to whether they do. It is a matter of public interest as to whether they live in a mansion worth £1 million or a flat worth £100,000. To that extent, we are accountable, so such information should be in the public domain.

James Gray: I could not disagree more. Whether we live in a mansion worth £1 million or a hovel worth nothing is of no significance or interest to our constituents. All that matters to them is whether we do a good job on their behalf in our constituency and in this place. Our personal circumstances and addresses should be matters for us and no one else.

Simon Hughes: I hear the hon. Gentleman, and disagree with him. It matters greatly to our electors to know whether we live in the constituency that we seek to represent, how long we have lived there and whereabouts we live. That should be a matter of public record, and I would resist any attempt to change that, other than in the most unusual circumstances. That is the case in the sense that one has to put one's name and address on the ballot paper.

Jackie Ballard: So that my hon. Friend does not feel alone in the debate that is developing, I should like to inform the Committee that—as I am sure he knows—the address and telephone number of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) have always been available in the local phone book, including during all the time when he was leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Simon Hughes: So that I am not accused of something else, I, like the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, have sometimes had to have the protection of the police at home. Paradoxically, that brought more attention to where I live than anything had done previously, as there was so much activity outside. That might be required for anyone, such as a journalist or a research scientist. The police are there to give additional protection, when it is needed, to members of the royal family, politicians, diplomats, business people and others. It is likely that people will need some protection at times. I do not pretend that that is not sometimes necessary, even if it turns out not to be justified. Although it might not be directly connected to the matters that we are debating, I mention it in the context of the treatment of private individuals.

James Gray: I might have misled the Committee this morning when I suggested that special branch is taking a particular interest in me and my house. The truth is that I have the good fortune to live next door to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who has special branch looking after his house, so the officers keep an eye on mine.

Simon Hughes: I had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, and he might unwittingly have misled the Committee. I am grateful to him.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and I have asked the Minister questions aimed at ensuring that the definitions in the Government new clauses are clear. The definition of a person who is in the vicinity of premises should be narrow. It could be that case law deals with that. However, ``in the vicinity'', as defined from its Latin root, does not necessarily mean very close. It could mean a long way away. That is a pretty wide definition, which gives the police the ability to give a direction to somebody who might be 100 yd, half a mile or several miles away. 
 At the moment, because of foot and mouth disease, there are protective rings around certain farms to prevent activity in the vicinity of infected farms. They sometimes stretch for several miles. I should like to flag up the fact that we are looking at a definition that may be far wider than intended, and far wider than might be appropriate in the circumstances.

Oliver Heald: As the hon. Gentleman will know, one of the concerns of the National Farmers Union is exactly that it should be possible to protect farmers who are subject to intimidation and the offer of violence in their domestic premises, which are on the farm. Does he agree that in many cases that would require some distance to be specified—certainly more than a few yards—to achieve the purpose?

Simon Hughes: Yes.
 The Bill refers to premises that are used by any individual as his dwelling. That begs some questions that we have not teased out. Some people live and work in the same place. Do the provisions mean dwellings only, or dwellings irrespective of whether they are also workplaces? Farms offer a good example: many farmers live and work in the same place. In their case, do we mean the whole area that is naturally part of their workplace, even though it might be nothing to do with their dwelling? Many farmers have fields that are not contiguous to the land surrounding the farmhouse—possibly on the other side of the road or of the valley. We need to be clear about such issues. 
 I am not persuaded by anything that the Minister has said, that the following phrases from the new clause represent a sufficiently strong test. The new clause states: 
``that constable also believes, on reasonable grounds, that the presence of that person... 
 (i) amounts to, or is likely to result in, the harassment of the victim; or 
 (ii) is likely to cause alarm or distress''. 
Those are alternatives, not cumulative factors. To illustrate my point, I shall use the example of last year's visit to this country by the President of China. While he was here he had a dwelling—it might have been a hotel, but it was still a place where he stayed. He may have been caused alarm or distress by the protests of people who were unhappy with Chinese policy on Tibet. Personally, I hope that they caused him distress, because that was the purpose of the protest: to bring his attention to something, to cause him to react and to affect him. 
 In addition, the purpose of the protesters was to persuade someone who would be defined as ``the victim'' under the new clause that he should not do something that he was entitled or required to do, or that he should do something that he was not under any obligation to do. It could be argued that to attempt to persuade the President of China to give up his Government's occupation of Tibet is to seek to persuade him to do something that he is under no obligation to do, under one definition of international law, but that morally he should do. We are in dangerous territory if we leave the new clause as it is. 
 Another example was given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). I do not want to repeat the debate that we had this morning, but it seems to me absolutely proper for a journalist, in certain circumstances, to go to someone's house, to wait outside their house for them to come out and to seek to ask them questions that may cause distress or alarm. That person may deserve to have distress or alarm caused to them. It must be a civil liberty to allow people to challenge those who are abusing other people's money or assets. That is part of a free society. 
 I understand that it is difficult to draw the line. I am not in favour of a society in which everyone is plagued by harassing journalists. However, the Bill includes more than a harassment test. The new clause uses the phrase 
``likely to result in, the harassment of the victim; or...is likely to cause alarm or distress.'' 
That is far too weak a test. We must return to the matter at a later stage. 
 Hon. Members have mentioned another issue. People working in the research science industries who have sent me letters want to ensure that their families are given sufficient protection and are not put under undue pressure. I understand and share that concern. Those people could be at risk at home, on their way between home and work, at work or in other places—such as when out shopping. We have not yet tackled the issue of whether the targeted individual and their family should be treated in the same way, or treated differently. I raise the question because we should not legislate on the hoof without having answered that question. 
 There are other aspects that we should consider carefully before we finalise the legislation. For example, subsection (2) of new clause 6 contains the proposal that 
 ``A direction under this section is a direction requiring the person to whom it is given to do all such things as the constable giving it may specify as the things he considers necessary''. 
We often debate whether such tests should be subjective or objective. I am not asserting my view of the matter, but I am asking whether there should be an objective test rather than a subjective test. 
 Another point raised with me is whether it is sufficient, in practical terms, for directions to be given orally, and whether people should be guilty of an offence if they do not comply with directions given orally. 
 I do not remember whether the Minister was on the demonstration that I attended when we were both at university, against Rudi Dutschke's deportation by Reginald Maudling. I was there—and the Minister confirms that he was there too. The police were there. Just before I went to university, a protest took place at the Garden House hotel against the Greek junta, the colonels and their undemocratic rule of Greece. There was plenty of police activity there. 
 Is sufficient protection provided for the civil liberties of people who are lawfully protesting in such a circumstance—and who are thus clearly seeking to make a point to people who might fear pressure—if the police tell the whole crowd of 100 or 1,000 people to move on, when there is not necessarily any legal requirement that they should know that the police have said that? It must be wrong for people to be guilty of an offence simply because when a direction was given—to which a police officer would attest on oath in court—they did not hear it or were unaware of it. People who were quite innocently protesting could be caught up in that.

Charles Clarke: On a minor point, and without going into romantic recollections of the Garden House hotel demonstration, at which I was not present, the hon. Gentleman has given two examples involving hotels: the hotel used by the president of China and the Garden house hotel. In our view, a hotel is not a dwelling. We believe that a dwelling is defined as a structure occupied as a person's home.

Simon Hughes: I understand that. It is a perfectly reasonable answer and if that is the current interpretation of the law, it is fine.
 On a separate issue, would General Pinochet's residence, for months—or years—in Surrey, have been his dwelling? It strikes me that he had no choice about it. It was his home de facto. He was not allowed to go anywhere else, and I think that the courts would have probably defined it as his home. The issue that I am concerned about would arise if people were standing outside General Pinochet's place of house arrest. Is the Prime Minister's home at No. 10 Downing street his dwelling? Perhaps I should have said No. 11 Downing street. I am confused these days as to who in the Government lives where. That house is not only his dwelling but his workplace. I raise the question only so that we can reach the correct definitions.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman has put a query into my mind. If one were to demonstrate outside someone's home, not requiring him or her to do something, but simply out of dislike, because he or she belonged to a different political party, that would presumably not be covered by the Bill. Perhaps the Minister should think about adding something to cover that eventuality.

Simon Hughes: That is an overly draconian response. The hon. Gentleman should always try to tend in the other direction. I shall have to persuade him that the tendency to legislate for more powers to be given to authority should always be resisted—even, or perhaps especially, by a Labour Government.
 If I wanted to protest to the Chinese Government, I might want to do so outside the Chinese ambassador's residence, which clearly is his home for as long as he is staying in London as ambassador. The same would apply to the American ambassador's residence, and would have applied to the South African ambassador's residence, if this had been happening 20 years ago. That would be a dwelling, and I would want the ambassador to do something that he was not doing, or to stop doing something that he was doing—although in my case, I would not spend my time there without a slightly stronger reason. I have better things to do. However, we need to deal with the questions that I have raised. 
 I think that it is proper, as in new clause 7, to extend the Bill to include other forms of communication that can be used for harassment. I do not know about other members of the Committee, but people who obtain one's mobile phone number can send text messages, which can be harassment because they fill up the text message space and it is necessary to keep deleting them. In the past two years, there have been two people who have thought that it was their life's work to leave messages on my answering machine about 25 times a day, and effectively to block all the other messages. I accept that it becomes harassment, although I have never sought protection against it. Clearly, e-mails could also be included in this category. Receiving e-mails every two seconds would be very tedious to deal with. We need to find the difference between what is tedious and what is harassment, and not to be over-sensitive about such things. 
 We are sympathetic to new clause 14, for the reasons that I gave earlier. The law on conspiracy is sufficient as it stands, so new clause 15 is unnecessary.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman share my anxiety in respect of new clause 6, that the directions have only to be given to one individual, and if he fails to carry out them out there are sanctions? An organised campaign could involve different people each day, as when a group of travellers boxed and coxed their vans and it was necessary to issue a possession order that affected not just individuals on the site but everyone who might go there in a certain period. Is not something stronger required?

Simon Hughes: I absolutely understand that point. It would be a nonsense if the police had to take action against each individual, separately. The hon. Gentleman is right: hunt saboteurs or members of a civil protest movement, for example, might operate in shifts. The people in Whitehall or Parliament square might do their shift and then go home, to be replaced by another shift. That is how many protests are organised. We need to consider such matters and ensure that we do not allow the police to have a blanket cordon—we have given ourselves a blanket cordon around the Palace of Westminster, although it is not often used—and subject them to undue bureaucratic pressure to identify different people who are part of the same group. As someone said recently about terrorist organisations, the problem with these groups is that they do not have membership lists and they do not all turn up at the annual general meeting. It is difficult to discover who is a member of such groups.
 On new clause 19, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) properly intervened to say that we must be careful that the law does not give protection to particular groups and not to others. By their own admission, it is on the Government's agenda to consider how to secure religious equality. Many religious groups in this country, particularly the Muslims, feel that their faith is not protected in the same way as that of other groups. 
 I am a member of the Church of England, which has particular protection in the law of the land: blasphemy against the Christian faith is an offence, yet it is not an offence to be rude or offensive about other faiths. That is wrong. There should be no such discrimination. We should have no law that makes free speech that may be offensive to people illegal; if the faith does not have the capacity to cope with that, there is something wrong with the faith.

Nick Hawkins: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. Although it may not be directly relevant to the point about the animal lobby, if we are discussing matters of race hate and so on, I can see that religion is relevant, too. I, too, am a member of the Anglican Church. Is he saying that his party's official stance is to be in favour of the disestablishment of the Church of England?

Simon Hughes: We are in favour of disestablishment over a phased period. We are also in favour of the repeal of the blasphemy laws so that the Christian Church does not get more protection than other faiths. The Government said, on the record, that following a report from the university of Derby, which was due last October, I think, they would consider how to secure protection for people who are discriminated against or who feel that they are persecuted on the grounds of their faith. One reason why new clause 19 was tabled was to probe how far they have got with that. In a Committee last year, the Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said that we would receive the report in the autumn. We want to know what has happened.
 There is already differentiation in law between certain types of crime. Parliament legislated under the present Government to treat people who were guilty of race hate crimes differently from other criminals. The hon. Member for South Thanet might have voted against those measures—I have not checked, but I doubt it, because the measures had general support across all the parties. There is at least a case for examining whether hate crimes on a wider basis—gender, sexual orientation or religion—should be given the same treatment in sentencing or when defining the aggravation of an offence. 
 If Muslims or Sikhs are attacked because they are Muslim or Sikh, for them the evil is the same as in a race crime. As happened in the Admiral Duncan, if people are targeted because they are thought to be gay by a madman, their perception is that they have been targeted because of their sexual orientation. The victims' experiences would be similar to those in race crimes. I raise the question because all parties have, to different degrees, promised to address race crimes and viewed them as particularly obnoxious. I believe that we have unfinished business on that, and this debate was the only opportunity in Committee of examining what the Government have achieved. I will be grateful for the Minister's considered reply.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman argued for disestablishment, but then went on to say that he and his party were in favour of the repeal of all blasphemy laws because they do not cover other faiths. Would it not be more logical for him to argue that the blasphemy laws should be extended to cover those other faiths as well?

Simon Hughes: May I complete my point? Disability, which is included in new clause 19, has not yet been mentioned. People are targeted, persecuted and attacked because of their disability. Again, those are particularly unpleasant, vile and obnoxious offences. All hon. Members will have experience from constituency work of people who have been attacked because they are in one of the categories that I have mentioned. We believe that the law should be strong enough to deal with that.
 I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what the Government have achieved, although I understand that he might tell us that the review on sentencing is due in a couple of months and that some aspects will be properly covered by that. I cannot remember whether they are also covered by the review by Lord Justice Auld, although I think that it is examining the workings of the system rather than specifics.

Stephen Ladyman: I am concerned about new clause 19, because it specifies certain groups of people and therefore leaves out others. I do not happen to be a Christian, and my local Catholic priest has been denouncing me from the pulpit in recent weeks for not believing in God. I would not be protected by the new clause. Someone could commit an offence against me without its being an aggravation, because I do not belong to one of the specified groups. It would be safest to devise a form of words that defined aggravation as an offence that was committed against an individual without provocation. That would include everyone.

Simon Hughes: I am extremely sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's view. This is proper debate. I made it clear that this was a probing new clause, which does not pretend to be perfectly drafted. Instead of ``religion'', it might be better to put ``belief'', because it would also include people such as the hon. Gentleman who have a belief, although not, in his definition, a religion.
 We raised such points because the Government, encouraged by other parties and organisations both in and outside Parliament, legislated to give race hate crimes a particular position in the legal system. As that has been done, there are arguments about whether other categories should be included. One might take the perfectly proper view that they should not. The hon. Gentleman made a quieter point well regarding those activities that are particularly obnoxious, whereby people are picked on for no reason and attacked for what they are: either what they are that they can help or what they are that they cannot help, which is even more obnoxious. We want to know whether there is an opportunity to improve the law regarding that issue. 
 I wish to conclude by dealing with the interventions of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). A good reason why it would be impossible to extend the blasphemy law to cover all faiths is that we would then have to define faith and religion. I have always taken the view that that is impossible, unless we have a register of religions, as we now have a register of political parties. Where two or three people are gathered together, they form a religion. In other countries, they form political parties but in this country they can form a religion. That is why many of us argue that it is better to remove blasphemy law protection from the one faith group that has it, and that faith does not need legal protection. Those who have faith believe either that faith should be able to defend itself or that thunderbolts will come and act on its behalf.

Nick Hawkins: I understand the hon. Gentleman's position, but surely he agrees that immense upset has been caused, particularly to those of the Muslim faith, by the many people who indulge in what that faith deems to be the most appalling blasphemies. Some of those people are extremely well known. We do not need to refer to them in the Committee and give them yet more undeserved publicity. Many leaders, particularly of the Muslim faith—I have connections with the Ahmadiya Muslims, and I think that the hon. Gentleman also knows them—would welcome some protection. That is why my view on the matter is slightly different from his.

Simon Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's view. It is fair to say that the view of the Muslim community in the United Kingdom is that it would like the law extended to give that protection. I understand why it takes that view, but I do not agree with it. I think that it would be better to have no protection. Like all others, the Islamic faith is capable of defending itself. In a world that allows freedom of speech, authors or others who wish to be rude about Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Sikhism should be allowed to do so. We have moved on. We should not be as sensitive as we have been. I take the view that freedom of speech should win over offence. It is an argument between more liberal and less liberal views about freedom of speech.
 That does not mean that I am any less respectful of communities such as the Muslim community. I was with members of my Muslim community at one of the mosques in my constituency yesterday. I respect it hugely, and Muslims respect people of other faiths. That is not the issue, but I hope that I have explained my reason for taking a different view, which I accept is no more justified than the hon. Gentleman's. He is entitled to his view. I am sorry that I have taken longer than at any other stage so far in Committee, but several important issues have been raised. 
 To return to the central issue, it is important that people going about their lawful business are protected by the law from intimidation. The managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences—whom I have met—his staff and people working for other organisations do not deserve to be intimidated as they have been and should have the protection of Parliament. I do not think that there is any fundamental dissent among us, and I do not want to send out the message that there is. However, we must ensure that when we put a new law on the statute book, it is justified and we know exactly why we wrote it as we did. I am concerned that the Bill is drafted too widely. It could be more accurately and correctly drafted after consideration. We will have an opportunity to look back on the debate, and there will be a chance to make further changes later. 
 I hope that we end up with a law that works, that responds to concerns that have been raised and that ensures that people who engage in lawful activity, whether others like it or not, are entitled to do so. We must respect their right to do that and, in many cases, applaud them for doing it, because it is done not just in the best interests of themselves and their fellow citizens but, as they see it, for good moral reasons and in the best interests of society as a whole.

Helen Clark: I join all members of the Committee in welcoming the Government's proposal to amend the legislation to deal with what we all regard as a violent terrorist abhorrence, directed against research scientists. The new clauses will give support to all those who have suffered from what the perpetrators—the charming people in the Animal Liberation Front—call non-violent home protests: mail, e-mail and telephone calls. The communications that I have received are certainly not non-violent. Why do I receive such communications? My constituency of Peterborough is not a million miles from Huntingdon, where Huntingdon Life Sciences is based—as well as other research facilities that use animals, including some at Cambridge university.
 I have received many representations and I crave the indulgence of the Committee in quoting from some of them. It is about time that we heard from people, in their own words, what such terrorism means to them. I shall not give names. One person who wrote to me from B & K Universal Ltd said: 
 ``What I don't understand is why people get away with victimising us. These people have no right to intimidate us...My journey to work should not be an ordeal.'' 
That is one of the milder letters. Someone else writes: 
 ``Animal activists have made me feel ashamed to admit the kind of work I do, even though I feel proud that I can make the animals as comfortable and well looked after as possible. I also feel a sense of achievement knowing the line of work I do is helping researchers find new cures for diseases, to help people and other animals.'' 
Someone from a completely different part of the country writes: 
 ``These animal rights extremists have hijacked the animal welfare group and are using this emotive issue to further their own private anarchist agenda.'' 
I am no longer prepared to listen to the kind of argument that says that if one does not support such violent, take-the-law-into-your-own-hands extremism, one is guilty of animal cruelty. I, and I am sure all members of the Committee, know that the people who perpetrate such activity are not doing it just for the animals. They are equally happy to engage in the kind of anarchism that occurred in Parliament square. They are a rent-a-mob who travel around communicating by mobile phone. Whatever piece of action is happening, they want a part of it and are going to make others pay.

Stephen Ladyman: Did my hon. Friend note that at the weekend, those people who supposedly care so much about animals refused to call off their demonstration at Huntingdon Life Sciences even though that ran the risk of spreading foot and mouth disease, leading to the slaughter of hundreds of animals?

Helen Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing up that important matter. He is absolutely right to point out where their true compassion lies: with self and self alone.

Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Lady knows from our discussions, I entirely agree with her—regarding not only her comments today but her excellent contribution on Second Reading. I know that she has worked closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, on those issues. As she says, many of her constituents are affected. Does she agree that that rent-a-mob is terrorising people countrywide? She, like my hon. Friends, has received many letters, from people in every part of the country, who are absolutely terrified and who have asked all members of the Committee to take the matter extremely seriously.

Helen Clark: I completely endorse what the hon. Gentleman said and hope that every other member of the Committee does so.
 To return to the comments of ordinary people who should be heard, someone else wrote to me: 
 ``I have suffered threats to myself, my family and my home. I am constantly on edge, especially when I see strange cars near my home. I know what they are capable of; my colleagues in the industry have suffered car bombs and have had their homes trashed. The current legislation is allowing this to take place, and therefore I fully support the new Bill being passed.'' 
Another communication—I hope that I am not boring the Committee, but we are talking about the interests of these people and I want to place their views on the record—states: 
 ``We ourselves are subjected to weekly shouts by megaphone, and I quote `scum, paedophile, murdering bastard, animal abuser, we know where you live, we know where your children go to school!''' 
Being subjected to such threats is unacceptable in a democracy. It is not simply an animal welfare issue. 
 Another letter states: 
 ``I am deeply concerned about anarchists forcing their views on other people through their behaviour, no matter what the subject might be.'' 
That brings me back to my main point, that this has nothing to do with animals; it is a particularly destructive and disruptive form of behaviour, which must be regarded as wholly unacceptable in any democracy, and especially so in this one. 
 Finally, another letter states: 
 ``Perhaps a member of Parliament could speak out for us, unless he/she fears the same type of harassment as we do.'' 
Hon. Members will have made forceful representations in their local newspapers and I am sure that they, like me, will have received some very nasty, unpleasant and intimidating correspondence—and will know precisely how to deal with it. 
 I shall now move on to Huntingdon Life Sciences. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to the use of early-day motions, and hon. Members will be aware of my early-day motion 374. We all deplored the attack on Brian Cass. I remember waking up and tuning in to the ``Today'' programme and hearing the dulcet tones of a gentleman from the Animal Liberation Front, known affectionately by some as ALF. Asked repeatedly by John Humphrys to condemn unreservedly the use of violence by persons in balaclavas, he refused to do so. He dodged the question, saying that he did not like violence, but he sort of understood it. It is precisely his attitude that we must legislate to get rid of.

Stephen Ladyman: If it was the usual spokesman for ALF, I can tell the hon. Lady that he has already served a prison sentence for previous violence against scientists.

Helen Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and we should all congratulate him on his detection work. If any of the fourth estate of journalists are present, I hope that they will make that fact known. It was certainly not publicised in the ``Today'' programme.

Nick Hawkins: I did not know that the hon. Member for South Thanet was going to raise that matter, but now that he has—helpfully—done so, I should mention that one of the barristers who shared chambers with me was junior counsel for the prosecution in the large ALF trial. It is right to place that on the record, and I am proud that someone with whom I worked over several years was involved in the successful prosecution of a person whom I can describe only as a terrorist.

Helen Clark: I am grateful for that contribution and I am glad that the Committee has been notified of that information publicly today. Returning to representations about Huntingdon Life Sciences—

Oliver Heald: I do not know whether the hon. Lady heard the apologists on Radio 5 Live who suggested that it was not animal extremists who attacked Mr. Cass, but someone from the pharmaceutical industry trying to set them up.

Helen Clark: That just goes to show the depths of argument to which these individuals will resort. I hope that we treat that suggestion with the contempt that it deserves and raise it for ridicule and, indeed, rebuttal.
 Over the past couple of weeks, I have been in contact with people at HLS. I particularly wanted to ascertain their views on the Government amendments. I have also been in contact with the Research Defence Society, as have many members of the Committee, and the pet care industry. The society has continuing concerns that the proposed legislation does not go far enough and will not have a sufficient effect on the more violent attacks, such as the shameful baseball bat attack on Brian Cass that we have mentioned and the 14 letter bombs that have been sent in the past few months. I was informed that one exploded in the face of the six-year-old daughter of a pesticides salesman. 
 Such attacks are, of course, already criminal offences. Not surprisingly, the people who have felt or been targeted have called on our police services each time that they received an unexpected parcel or saw unknown people near their offices. For some of my constituents who work at HLS, that means a daily, or sometimes twice daily, desperate telephone call. People who have made such complaints include animal auctioneers, sheep farmers, fish and chip salespeople and even members of the British Heart Foundation who donate money for testing. The net has indeed been spread far and wide. 
 Obviously, all that puts a further strain on police resources. The Minister will be aware that I have in the past written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the need for additional police funding for the Cambridgeshire constabulary to enable it effectively to control the unlawful activities of the animal rights extremists targeting HLS and associate companies and employees. I do not claim a party political first on that. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon has led the campaign by Cambridgeshire Members of Parliament, which has spanned both political parties and included Robert Sturdy, a Member of the European Parliament. 
 I was absolutely delighted that, after persistent lobbying and letters, the Home Secretary responded to the request very well. I know that the chief constable of Cambridgeshire would want me to say how grateful he and his force were for the additional funding, but I want to ensure that it is not a one-off and that there is a regular supply of money that can be used in such instances. People should make no mistake: the animal terrorism and extremism at HLS and other places is not a new vogue for 2000 and 2001. Unless it is stamped out firmly, it will go on and on. Police officers will often be unable to take breaks at weekends or to have rest days. That will discourage people from entering the police force and make people want to leave it, weakening the force and having an effect not only on animal rights extremism but on the quality of the police service. I firmly hope that the Minister will assure us of continual adequate and fair additional funding for forces in that position. 
 On new clause 7, I welcome the additional penalties of imprisonment or a higher fine that may be imposed under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. I also support the shift in emphasis under subsection (2)(a) and (b) of the same Act from individual belief to a shared definition of what constitutes reasonable grounds for making threats. 
 I shall again refer to a communication that I received from a person in a senior position at B&K, who would like rather more definition of the Bill's terms and mentions a definition of peaceful protest. That has not yet come up in Committee, but the person said: 
 ``Genuine debate on all matters is constructive and necessary but when one group tries to force its views on others this is not democracy. With a peaceful protest there should be no necessity for...spitting...interfering with the free passage of people and vehicles going about their lawful business. Posters and placards should be relevant to the protest, accurate and not give offence.'' 
Whether in Committee or elsewhere, I believe that the Government should look again at the legislation concerning what is peaceful protest and what is not. We need to embark on a redefinition. 
 I have talked to members on both sides of the Committee about new clauses 14 and 15. I am at one with my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet. I am in favour of the proposals under new clauses 14 and 15 about conspiracy and harassment. As a result of those proposals, I hope, as I am sure does the whole Committee, that the Minister will consider the matter and return with excellent Government clauses on Report and create a climate in which our constituents can go about their lawful, chosen profession without fear of harassment or intimidation to themselves or their families.

Oliver Heald: My constituency is about 15 miles south of Huntingdon and scientists who live there have been persecuted in the way in which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) outlined. I am determined that the law should be improved so that such activities are stopped, in so far as they can be. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon set the matter in context when he said that the experiments at Huntingdon Life Sciences are not optional, but necessary. They are experiments to find cures for cancer, AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, asthma and other serious conditions.
 This country has a tremendous pharmaceutical industry. In Hertfordshire, we have some of the best companies in the world with some of the best research facilities. It is not just a matter of making money for Britain, but such research provides for the world cures for some terrible, crippling illnesses and diseases. I do not believe that this country is not wedded to animal welfare. We are. As a country, we take all possible precautions to ensure that animal welfare is compromised only in so far as it is absolutely necessary and where there is the overriding human concern, which is a necessity.

Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the superb reputation of the companies in his constituency, within the London and Thames valley area of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry are 40,000 staff who are employed by its 17 member companies, which is two thirds of the industry's total for the United Kingdom? Those 17 member companies are investing more than £1.8 billion annually in this country's research and development. As my hon. Friend said, employees in that industry need protecting.

Oliver Heald: Yes. It is wrong that people who are doing the world a service as well as making money for Britain are subjected to the sort of harassment that we have heard about. I shall not cite examples, but I have received the type of letters that the hon. Member for Peterborough has received. In fact, at least one of them was the same. We have a duty to tackle such matters.

Stephen Ladyman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the regulation system for animal experiments in the United Kingdom is the tightest and most comprehensive in the world and that the standard of welfare for those animals is the best in the world? The inevitable consequence of terrorism driving animal experiments abroad is that they will be done to a lower standard under a more lightly controlled regime.

Oliver Heald: That is exactly one of the commitments, or statements, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon asked the Minister to make on Second Reading, and I was pleased that the Minister did so. The Minister also pointed out that the exercise is not voluntary for those companies. They are required by law to apply such procedures to protect people who have such treatments applied to them to save them from serious illness. As my right hon. Friend said, the Thalidomide centre is in his constituency, so no one knows more than he about the possible effects if medicines are not properly tested and a regime such as the one that we have is not in place.
 The points that my right hon. Friend made at the time that especially needed to be dealt with related to directors' and shareholders' addresses. The Government have introduced welcome proposals on directors' addresses, and I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will continue to examine the issue of shareholders' addresses and consider what action might be taken. Malicious communications are dealt with in the new clauses, which is welcome. 
 The point that my right hon. Friend made was that besetting people's homes should be unlawful. The proposal does not go that far. Although we shall support the proposal, my anxiety relates to an organised rota for a large number of activists going to someone's home. One of them might one day be told by the constable to leave, and might eventually leave or be dealt with. However, the following day there might be another one, who would be dealt with, followed by another. 
 The proposal would not necessarily stop the continuing conspiracy aspect of what is going on at the moment. I hope that the Minister will consider ideas to tackle that. New clauses 14 and 15 make an attempt to do so by providing protection from harassment by ending the requirement relating to the need for someone to have behaved in such a way on two separate occasions. Other ways may be available, and we should continue the search between now and Report, and even after Report if necessary, as the Bill proceeds to the Lords. 
 Secondary activity was another great anxiety that my right hon. Friend raised. He had in mind pressure on staff of financial institutions, such as banks and pension funds, as a result of the harassment of their employees. I should like an assurance from the Minister that his proposal will tackle that problem. 
 Although today we are being consensual—I hope that Labour Members will support new clauses 14 and 15—we are owed an explanation of the action of the Labour party pension fund. At a crucial moment it pulled the plug, and there is no doubt that that had a damaging effect on everyone else. If the Government's political party's pension fund pulls the plug on an important investment in Huntingdon Life Sciences on the basis of ethics—which was, I understand, the basis on which it was portrayed—we are entitled to know what exactly were the ethics that drove the Labour party pension fund to do that. Perhaps the action had nothing to do with ethics but related simply to Labour party pension fund workers being threatened, and the Labour party deciding, as have others, that it could not afford to put its employees at risk. One way or the other, we are entitled to know. 
 The Government may want to reflect on the fact that in opposition they were very vocal on animal rights issues. I am all in favour of animal welfare, and I believe in peaceful protest, as do Labour Members. However, the point of fever pitch was reached on the issue. Before the general election, the Labour party accepted a substantial donation from a group that campaigned on animal welfare issues. Looking back on the matter, the Minister might say, ``The Labour party has made some mistakes in this area. Now we are in government, we have come to our senses. That is why we are bringing forward sensible proposals at this time.''

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend has come to part of the point that I was going to make. It seemed to me, as it did to other Opposition Members and many people outside the House who had studied such issues, that there could be a third explanation. My hon. Friend has perhaps given part of the explanation in relation to the sudden decision by the Labour party pension fund to pull the plug. In addition to substantial donations by the animal rights lobby to the Labour party, it might be related to the fact that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who was then shadow spokesman on agricultural issues—and therefore on animal and animal welfare issues—and who is now a Minister, personally received a substantial donation. I raised the issue when we were in government and the Labour party was in opposition because it was entirely inappropriate for a Front Bench spokesman on such issues to take that money, which, of course, he declared. When he came into government and became the Minister as opposed to the shadow Minister, he, and, by implication, the whole Labour Government, were partis pris, which could only give comfort to the animal rights extremists.

Oliver Heald: As my hon. Friend says, the Labour party may have been silly in opposition, and I hope that it has come to its senses—

Stephen McCabe: Would the hon. Gentleman like to take the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that he is not in any sense attempting to claim that animal welfare organisations support terrorist operations or are in any way connected with the kind of activity that we have discussed this afternoon?

Oliver Heald: I am happy to confirm that.

Stephen McCabe: I was asking—

Jimmy Hood: Order.

Oliver Heald: I entirely accept that there is no such connection, and I did not say that there was.
 On more detailed aspects, is the Minister saying that the sending of services such as funeral services, gravel and so on is covered by the law, either under the new clauses or the protection from harassment provisions? 
 What will be the impact on farms? The National Farmers Union has contacted me about serious incidents of intimidation and threats of violence outside farm premises by individuals who disagree with the method of farming that is being practised. Apparently, there have been terrorist attacks, including activities such as following the farmer's children to school and videoing elderly relatives of the farmer through a window. 
 The NFU is concerned about what ``in the vicinity'' means in that context. Will it be possible for those who are directed to move away simply to walk to the other side of the farm field and continue their activities? Under subsection (5), it is anticipated that the constable can make exception to his direction, including 
``conditions as to the distance from the premises in question at which, or otherwise as to the location where, persons who do not leave their vicinity must remain''.
 Does that mean that constables have the power to direct persons to leave and stay a significant distance away—for example, a mile or half a mile—or just a few yards? The Minister will recall that, under section 65 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which was fully debated, a person who is within five miles of the boundary of the site of a rave can be instructed not to proceed in that direction. That is a much longer distance than the phrase, ``in the vicinity'' might suggest. Will the Minister clarify what that means?

James Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is reasonably likely that the farm buildings may be the target for terrorists or protesters? Those buildings might be a reasonable distance from the farmhouse. If the provision is designed to protect the farmer from the type of activity that we all decry, it would be necessary to include the place of work as well as the house.

Oliver Heald: That is the problem with a farm. It is not only a dwelling but a workplace. People can be intimidated easily by burning a haystack half a mile away or causing damage to buildings that are a significant distance away. That is why the NFU hopes that it will be possible to distance the individuals concerned from the farm. The other issue is that the direction's value would be limited if it were lawful for a person to return to the scene—an hour after the police had left, for example. Will the Minister confirm whether the ban from an area has a fixed duration? For example, under other provisions, such a direction would last for 72 hours. Will the direction specify a length of time during which intimidators would be kept away?
 Is it good enough for the direction to be made orally, or is it proposed that there would be a written record of it? Obviously, a concern in court would be that defendants could swear blind that no direction had been given, or claim that it was not given in the terms that it was. Will the Minister consider how that problem could be overcome? There is concern that the groups that we have discussed might actively look for loopholes in the law, or for ways to evade their responsibilities. It would clearly be necessary to prove that the direction had been given because there may be many members of the group, while only one constable is involved. Would it be possible, in such examples as the Huntingdon situation, to video an officer giving a direction? 
 Although I have criticised the Labour party in general, I make no criticism of the Labour members of the Committee who have campaigned vigorously and bravely on this matter. We do not see them in a party political light in respect of this matter, because they have stood up for their constituents and beliefs. However, we hope that the Minister can explain the role of the Labour party pension fund in the matter.

Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it may not be an entire coincidence that, when the Government's usual channels chose the membership of the Committee, they were careful to ensure—with, I think, the sole exception of the Whip—that all members, at every level, were newly elected in 1997? I do not suggest that the Government Whip was involved in anything that my hon. Friend or I mentioned earlier, because he was not; he is a good cross-party friend. However, there are usually a number of senior Government Back Benchers on the Committees. This Committee is very unusual because even the two Ministers were newly elected in 1997.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I would not go as far as to describe such hon. Members as the good guys, because that would be unparliamentary. However, they clearly do not have any form. We are planning to discuss criminal records later.

Nicholas Lyell: It is nice to rejoin the Committee when there is such sweetness and light and, happily, the Government are making an effort to bring forward constructive legislation to deal with a real problem.
 I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, especially because a significant number of the employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences live in my constituency. I have had substantial correspondence from them and I have corresponded with the Home Office on their behalf. I am pleased that major efforts are being made to produce satisfactory legislation. 
 It is important to look at the new clauses with a view to ensuring that the police have the power to make demonstrators stand well back, because standing a few yards back is not satisfactory. Of course, such demonstrators should be able to express their views. However, the harassment that my constituents have faced for months and years is intolerable and unacceptable in the kind of Britain that any of us wish to live in, regardless of party affiliation. 
 It is important that the legislation should not contain loopholes. As my hon. Friend said, such protesters are financially well supported and are guided by well-informed people. They will use every possible loophole in the law if we leave such loopholes. I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Of course one does not wish to prevent people from demonstrating, as it is their right. However, that right has been deeply abused in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire and the vicinity of Huntingdon Life Sciences. 
 I represent a farming constituency, so I join my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire in drawing attention to the points made by the National Farmers Union. Not only farmhouses but the workplace in general may be beset and harassed, so it is essential that clauses are put in place that protect people at their work as well as in the place where they live. The people working at Huntingdon Life Sciences may be beset when they go home and when they are at work. We must institute laws that protect from harassment citizens doing important and valuable work, while maintaining freedom of speech. 
 I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the necessity of such scientific work. The law requires that certain things must be tested on animals because there is no other way that is held to be safe. Everyone agrees that, if we could find another method of testing that did not involve animals, we could take that route; indeed, the law requires that we do. However, scientists and technological workers at Huntingdon Life Sciences are putting their lives at risk to carry out important work, so we owe it to them to protect them.

Charles Clarke: We have had a lengthy and well-informed debate.
 I want first to deal with some misleading party political rubbish. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made a series of assertions that were without foundation. I need simply to read out the early-day motion from which he selectively quoted fallaciously to illustrate his point. It is dated 6 February 1995 and was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). It states, in its entirety: 
 ``This House congratulates all those around the country who have been demonstrating against the vile trade of animals for slaughter; believes that all citizens have a right to defy laws and regulations which have no moral basis whilst at the same time accepting the full consequences of such acts of civil disobedience and—`` 
I emphasise this point— 
``disdaining physical violence against individuals however provocative and loathsome they may be; further believes that Her Majesty's Government—`` 
meaning the former Conservative Government— 
``must listen to the overwhelming expressions of public opposition and take immediate steps to halt this offensive and immoral trade and defend such action in the European Court if challenged.'' 
I read out the early-day motion in its entirety and emphasised the phrase that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, for whatever reason, forgot to mention because, whatever one thinks of the individual merits of the argument, it related to peaceful process, including civil disobedience. It specifically distanced itself from violent action. I repeat the reference that it made to 
``disdaining physical violence against individuals however provocative and loathsome they may be''. 
The hon. Gentleman sought to mislead the Committee and the House by suggesting that the hon. Members to which he referred—he even referred to them in terms of the pre-1997 intake—encouraged violent activity. That was misleading, and he should withdraw his comments.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister may have read out the full text, but I do not withdraw one word of my comments, because the early-day motion was intended by the hon. Member for West Ham to give comfort and aid to those involved in animal protests. I accept that the wording makes reference to disdaining violent protest. The Minister was not in the House at the time, but he was a member of the Labour party; we in the House heard the language used and experienced the climate of opinion. In speech after speech and in every early-day motion, his party gave aid and comfort to those people. I have a pack of examples from the Library, and I could quote other early-day motions.

Jimmy Hood: Order. It will not be necessary for the hon. Gentleman to quote from early-day motions. He is making an intervention.

Jimmy Hood: Order. It will not be necessary for the hon. Gentleman to quote from early-day motions. He is making an intervention.

Stephen Ladyman: On a point of order, Mr. Hood. It is clear that the Committee was misled this morning. The impression given about the early-day motion was very different from the text that has just been read to us. I wonder whether you would be prepared to study the Hansard account of this morning's debate and compare it with the early-day motion to establish whether the Committee has indeed been misled.

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Hood. The action to which the new clause refers, and which was dealt with this morning, is the besetting of people's homes. Because you were a Member of Parliament at the time, you will recall that during the protests people's homes were indeed beset. For example, the home of Lord Waldegrave, the then Minister of Agriculture, was beset, and it was widely reported at the time that more than 30 protesters attended at his home. The home of the then junior Minister, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), was also beset. Therefore, the protests of which the early-day motion approves involved not direct physical violence to the individual but the besetting of people's homes, which is the matter with which the new clauses deal. Given the circumstances, I ask that you read the Hansard report, Mr. Hood, because in my view, by drawing attention to an early-day motion that made his point, my hon. Friend addressed the issue precisely.

Jimmy Hood: Yes, I will read the Hansard report carefully, as I always do. If the matter has been accurately rendered, I am sure that I will read that the points were made in the way that was described. The difference is one of emphasis and opinion—it is not a point of order.

Charles Clarke: I entirely accept what you have said, Mr. Hood, and I do not wish to pursue the matter further. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has made it clear that he will not withdraw his remarks. That is shameful, but there we are. It is important that Committee members understand the core of the debate in this Committee and in the House, which is that there is a significant and major distinction between public protest, civil disobedience and expressing one's views on a range of issues, and the offering of violence to people. That distinction was drawn in the early-day motion to which reference has been made.
 Committee members will be aware that I did not instigate this discussion. It was the hon. Member for Surrey Heath who decided to descend into that particular gutter, and I felt it necessary to put the record straight. In that context, I want to put on the record the work of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union, which is not normally regarded as a dangerous right-wing organisation. In fact, at various times some of us have had a little difficulty in our dealings with it. Its vigour has extended to sending delegations to Parliament, which were met by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to argue for precisely the type of measures that we are considering. The MSFU is a significant organisation that is affiliated to the Labour party. It has a long record of organising the work of scientists in such areas, and it stresses exactly the views such as were expressed in this Committee by some of my hon. Friends. It does not adopt the atypical stance that has been described. 
 I have no personal experience of fund raising and donations from various organisations to political parties after 1992. However, I believe that some organisations offered funding to a range of political parties, including the Conservative party. I do not know whether it accepted that funding, but as far as I am aware those organisations were not, and are not, involved in promoting violence in any way. In that regard, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green made his point well. 
 I am in no position to comment in any way on the party political point that was made about activities relating to the Labour party pension fund. I am not a member of the party's national executive committee, and I am not familiar with the circumstances or with matters that influenced decisions taken. However, I would submit that the matter is not one for this Committee. As for the general party political issue, it was a disgrace that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath descended into that particular gutter. It is shameful that he did not withdraw his remarks, and I want the record to note that I dissociate all my hon. Friends from violent activity of the kind that was mentioned.

James Gray: The Minister is huffing and puffing about misleading the Committee, and he is suggesting that all political parties have benefited equally from the animal welfare lobby. The truth of the matter is that the Labour party received £1 million, in return for which it changed its policy on foxhunting. It is true that other political parties have received small amounts over the years, but I, for one, would certainly turn them down. The Labour party has been a substantial beneficiary of the animal welfare lobby.

Jimmy Hood: Order. Short interventions please.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has just conceded that the Conservative party has received money from animal welfare organisations. I, too, have no idea of the amount of money received from the various organisations.

James Gray: Very small.

Jimmy Hood: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt the Minister when he is speaking.

Charles Clarke: We can discuss where the money went, but to be fair to Opposition Members, they have not suggested that any of those organisations have condoned, encouraged or supported violent activity of the sort referred to. I would not have gone into that had not the hon. Member for Surrey Heath raised the matter at the beginning. I was keen to get it out of the way at the beginning, but I shall say no more about it because more substantial and interesting questions have been raised, to which I shall return.
 I shall deal first with new clause 20, which refers to shareholders. Shareholders are not required by law to file their home addresses. They may give a service or accommodation address or that of a nominee, which is significant. They may even give the address of their company. Systems must be in place to ensure that the law is sensibly upheld. Shareholders need to receive notifications that are sent to them by the company and to be contacted by others--for example, during a takeover or merger. The Government are considering guidance to explain the existing law, which includes safeguards that would go some way to meeting the points made. 
 The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) reiterated what the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, said about secondary activity. First, the safeguards cover organisations that may be shareholders in particular industries. Secondly, the protection that we are seeking to provide for principal primary organisations--for example, scientists working in labs--applies in exactly the same way for organisations investing in those companies.

Simon Hughes: Do the Government take the view that the names of shareholders should be a matter of public record so that, if people wish to lobby them, they can reasonably do so?

Charles Clarke: The names of shareholders should be on the public record, but I am not familiar with all aspects of company law, so I shall be slightly guarded in my comments. The reason for the current law is to enable company business to take place; it is not specifically for lobbying, unless takeovers are thought to be lobbying issues. We are not trying to change the situation.
 My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet referred to the registration of directors. Existing proposed directors may apply for and obtain the protection of a confidentiality order. All subsequent filings will refer to the service address for the public record. Our difficulty is that existing records cannot be expunged. They are kept at Companies house in a variety of formats, including paper and microfiche image. Companies keep them in their registers of directors, which are publicly available. Given those various formats and the volume of documents filed over the years, we do not see how early entries could be removed simply by diktat. As my hon. Friend understands, the information is widely held by specialist business providers such as Dun and Bradstreet, ICC and Experian. It is also undoubtedly held by animal rights activists. Such a provision would initially benefit only new directors or directors who have moved house, although it would eventually offer wider protection. We do not see how we can challenge that situation more effectively, but I understand the point and if there was a solution, I would be in favour of it. However, history is history, and if a previous director has provided his residential address, it will remain on the public record. Someone who was, but is no longer and does not propose to be a director again, cannot benefit. 
 Shareholder names and service addresses are still on the public record with the number of shares held. The company law review is considering various related questions. 
 Those are my responses to various points raised on new clause 20. I am pleased that it has been generally welcomed, and I want to pay a personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet who has campaigned energetically for the provision. We have had an energetic and full discussion with the Department of Trade and Industry, and I am glad that we have been able to introduce proposals at this time. As my hon. Friend knows, I was concerned about whether we could do so, but the pressure has been positive from that point of view. 
 On new clause 19, it is fair to say that the debate ran very wide indeed. I had not anticipated having to deal with blasphemy law in this Committee. We considered repealing the laws on blasphemy, but our consultation showed that that would raise difficult issues, which is no surprise to anyone, and there was no consensus on a way forward. I am advised that we should not attempt to revise the law at present. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to the Home Office commissioned research by the university of Derby and the report on religious discrimination in England and Wales, which is intended to establish views on experiences of religious discrimination. I understand that it was published two weeks ago with the Hepple report on the wider implications of legislation on religious discrimination. Both reports are intended to stimulate discussion. They do not represent the Government's position, nor are they formal consultation papers, although of course we are interested in the responses to them. It is not an area that is within my specific remit at the Home Office, so I cannot speak with personal authority, but that is what I am advised is the position. 
 On the other points made about new clause 19, I was inclined to rest my case in urging the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey not to press it when my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet intervened and talked about how these matters should be dealt with. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, truthfully, that he was seeking a wider debate on some of the difficult and problematic issues that the new clause raised. 
 Both the sentencing review and the ultimate report are the best way in which to consider these issues. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we focused on issues of racial aggravation explicitly and that we have not looked at the situation in the round. The discussions that I have had with certain organisations have reinforced our interest in a more holistic approach, and in that sense, I accept the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve. I hope that he will acknowledge that the subject requires substantial consideration before something further is put on the statute book. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the new clause.

Simon Hughes: I am happy with the Minister's reply, and agree that the matter must be considered cautiously. I anticipate that we shall return to these matters when we have had the chance to consider the work to which he referred. I am grateful for the Minister's understanding of why I raised the issue. It is a matter on which there should be the broadest consensus and cross-party support.

Charles Clarke: We now come to the substance of our debate—new clauses 6 and 7 and the Opposition amendments, with which I have some sympathy. I am happy to give the assurance that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey seeks about producing a brief summary of current relevant law to consider the situation and to help our debates at further stages.
 On the matter of police co-operation, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath made an important point after his party political diatribe. The co-operation between police forces when dealing with these matters is important. That is why we raised the status of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which can analyse and collect data, and use intelligence across a range of areas. This issue applies to a number of other important areas of policy and policing. Since taking on this job, one of the most extraordinary discoveries I have made is that there is an insufficiently high level of co-operation between police forces for a variety of reasons, such as having their own IT systems. The hon. Gentleman is right to make the point, and I assure him that although the decisions are operational and not for Ministers, the police are committed to developing the joint approach and use of intelligence to which he refers.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive way in which he has responded to my point. Will he go a step further and ensure that, through his officials and his Department, our concern about inconsistency, which was shared by some of his hon. Friends, is drawn to the attention of police forces? I appreciate the Minister's point that these are operational decisions, but it seems extremely odd that when one force is faced with animal rights extremists it can arrest 87 of them, whereas another force cannot arrest any of them.

Charles Clarke: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this debate will be brought to the attention of the police. However, there are difficulties because the operational independence of chief constables is an important constitutional principle, which I know he accepts. We are careful not to violate that principle. That said, we are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the police and national agencies, such as the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, to see what common approaches can be developed. When it comes down to a fundamental judgment about how a particular situation should be addressed in a particular circumstance, I would be loth to violate the operational independence of chief constables.
 I want to make an important point in response to the passionate and significant speech about the role of science made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet. I ought to declare an interest in that Europe's largest research centre into genetically modified foods, the John Innes centre, is in my constituency. I am acutely aware of the fantastic commitment and quality of the scientists working in that area, and the major contribution that they believe they can make to the welfare of humanity, whether by feeding people more effectively or healthily, eliminating disease or taking pesticides off the land so that people can operate in a greener way. 
 My hon. Friend defended the scientific method by arguing that we ought to address the issues confronting society through science rather than prejudice. The scientific method entails rigorously testing a proposition and then asking what we can do in the light of that. It requires an examination of the situation. It is important that society allows that course to be taken, rather than allowing a group of prejudiced individuals or a prejudiced individual to sabotage that process and undermine the operation of science. We must stand up for that important principle in these modern times, because certain commentators, individuals and media outlets try to devalue the role of science. We, as a society, must not allow that to happen. 
 The question for Members of Parliament is how do we ensure that science serves society. The answer is not to say that science is not the way to address the problems that we face. That powerful and important point runs throughout our debate on new clauses 6 and 7, because it is fundamental to the concept of modern democracy. It also relates to my view of journalists. No one has the right to say, ``Because of my judgment and superior position I can override that.'' The challenge for hon. Members is to ensure that science is regulated and brought under proper review.

Jackie Ballard: I want to make sure that I understand the Minister's point. Is he saying that we should at all times consider the behaviour of all scientists to be both morally acceptable and necessary? In the past, would he have defended scientists who forced beagles to smoke to find out the effect of smoking, given that humans can chose whether or not to smoke? Was it legitimate to use animals for that purpose?

Charles Clarke: I have two things to say about that. First, the question of how one regulates science is a central question for Britain today. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet said, we regulate animal testing against higher standards than any other country in the world, which I think is both important and right. If, for example, the question whether forcing beagles to smoke cigarettes was appropriate were to arise now, it would be a matter for Parliament and regulation, and would not be a reason for an individual to go and smash someone's head in—it is as crude as that. We must try to find a means of regulating the development of science in our society? That is a difficult question. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who worked in this area at the university of East Anglia, chairs the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which seeks to develop better quality scientific work to try to address those issues. I concede that that is not easy, but that is how to go about it.

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is aware that if the experiment with beagles were to be done today, the scientist would have to convince the Home Office that the information must be collected, that it was essential for human health and that the only way it could be collected would be to conduct that experiment on animals. If that could not be demonstrated, the experiment would not be allowed.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. Moreover, his point illustrates the fact that Parliament has, over the years, strengthened its capacity to control and direct science. That is precisely what protects us against the individual mad scientists favoured by the hon. Member for Taunton.

Jackie Ballard: Did the Minister say that I favour individual mad scientists? I hope that I misheard him. Earlier, he said that scientists making beagles smoke cigarettes was no excuse for smashing their heads in. Of course it is not. I said that there is no circumstance, in a democracy, in which I would defend violent protest. However, does the Minister agree that we would not have made progress towards making such experiments illegal had people not protested and demonstrated?
 Parliament does not always have a monopoly on wisdom when deciding whether an activity should be made illegal. It often responds to ordinary members of the public who protect against something that they believe is not acceptable in society. Legitimate protest or demonstration against scientists is not a blanket, anti-scientist stance.

Charles Clarke: I do not wish to be rude, but I think that the hon. Lady makes a trivial point. Parliament should encourage protest, the expression of views to expose what goes on, campaigning and pressure. I have always opposed those who say, ``Leave it to Parliament. It knows best.'' Of course there should be arguments, discussions and explanations, and everybody has to make their own case. Ultimately, however, the country has to judge, and it is right that such judgments are made by Parliament.
 I object to the idea that such a point of view makes one pro-science or anti-science. I am unequivocally pro-science. The issue is how science should be regulated to ensure that it serves society and does not take a different path. I deprecate the tendency, found in some quarters of the country, to imply that it is right on to be anti-science. I have been more engaged in issues surrounding genetically modified crops than in those surrounding animal rights, because of the constituency interest that I mentioned earlier. I think it outrageous that serious research into the use of that science for the benefit of humanity is being hijacked and wrecked by prejudiced individuals. Norfolk farmers ask me why their crops are being wrecked. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made a similar point. 
 Such behaviour is completely wrong and unacceptable. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet and other colleagues made the argument for science, and I have been pleased to respond. We need to stand up for science more strongly than we have sometimes done.

Helen Clark: Does the Minister agree that there is a world of difference between the peaceful protest that he described, which enshrines the supremacy of Parliament, and the type of extra-parliamentary activity that was advocated as an alternative by someone who stood for the Labour party in 1983? He was condemned for those sentiments by the then leader of the party, Michael Foot.

Charles Clarke: In general, I agree. I am not sure that I quite caught my hon. Friend's final point, but I am sure that she is right.
 It is important to sustain a commitment to science for the development of society as a whole. That is an important element of our discussion, and were we not to accept the Government new clauses, we would be caving in to an anti-scientific, anti-rational approach to life, which I oppose. 
 I turn to the specific comments that have been raised. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggested that the wording in new clause 6(1)(c)— 
``(i) amounts to, or is likely to result in, the harassment of the victim; or 
 (ii) is likely to cause alarm or distress to the victim''— 
is not strong enough, but I cannot accept that. As we have already said, three separate tests will have to apply. The first is that the constable believes ``on reasonable grounds''—that is an important qualification—that 
``that person is present there for the purpose...of representing to the victim or another individual...or of persuading the victim or such another individual— 
 (i) that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do; or 
 (ii) that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do'', 
which is the same point in reverse. 
 That test is the first that has to be met. It is a tough one. People cannot merely stand outside and say, ``I do not like what you are about.'' They must use suasion to persuade people to take decisions other than those that they would normally take. The second test is either the harassment test or the alarm or distress test. That, too, is pretty tough. It does not apply to standing outside with a placard: the action must result in harassment, or cause alarm or distress. The third test is that the constable has to have reasonable grounds for believing that a direction should be made. Each of those stages is a substantial process. I am not convinced that we should drop any of those elements.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke: No; but I shall give way once I have dealt with all the points raised on new clause 6.
 We then come to the question of dwellings, which is important, not least because of the earlier confusion on hotels that I sought to clarify. The provision will apply to any place that is used as a dwelling, including those that are part dwelling and part commercial premises. That is important if it is to cover places such as farms. The definition provided in the Public Order Act 1986 also includes caravans and even tents, but someone must be using the structure as their home. That is why hotels are excluded, so the provision cannot apply to a head of state who is making a visit; that is a different state of affairs. 
 The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire raised the issue of vicinity. I acknowledge that some people have queried what the most appropriate definition should be. One could discuss it, as I said earlier, but it is a matter of common sense to be dealt with by the police officer on the spot. We need a flexible power, and that is the right way to proceed. 
 On timing, I can tell the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that there is no limit on how far away people could be ordered to go. It will be up to the constable to decide, in all the circumstances, what is necessary to prevent harassment. No maximum length of direction is set; again, it depends on what the constable believes to be necessary. I accept that those provisions are flexible—some may believe that they are too flexible—but given the wide variety of circumstances that has to be covered, specifying the time or distance precisely in law could lead unintentionally to difficulties and problems. The points that the hon. Members for North-East Hertfordshire and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made about farms were an interesting illustration of that. 
 I turn to the question of how the direction is given. The clause specifies that it may be given orally. Subsection (3) states: 
 ``A direction...may be given orally...where a constable is entitled to give a direction under this section''. 
That does not exclude a video or a written record being made. Although it may be good practice for a written record be made at the time in order to avoid doubt, it would be best not to require in law that it should be done in writing. An oral direction would be satisfactory. 
 I have covered the points raised on new clause 6. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey

Simon Hughes: The Minister said that the cumulative triple lock may be sufficient. Does he not accept that, of itself, the first condition—the presence of someone seeking to persuade someone to do something or not to do something—is absolutely unexceptional and therefore perfectly lawful? It adds nothing. It is merely a fact, but it is not prejudicial, deleterious or harmful. It is a normal and proper activity. It is the second test that takes an action into the realms of criminality. The second test should have a decent threshold, and the threshold for the alarm and distress element should be minimal.

Charles Clarke: I do not entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that what he calls the triple lock is a difficult set of tests to fulfil. The threshold is high, but it is not so high that it is impossible for a police officer to deal with in those circumstances. It would seriously inhibit anyone taking the action concerned. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has made his point constructively, and that he is not trying to be pernickety, but I stand by what I said earlier.
 I spoke about deliveries of unwanted goods, a subject raised earlier by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire in relation to new clause 7. They could be caught by the Malicious Communications Act 1988, but use of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 may be the right approach. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet tabled amendment (a) to new clause 7. It was a positive amendment designed for clarification. In the great majority of cases when the threatened act would constitute a criminal offence, any arguments of reasonableness made by the defence would cut almost no ice in the courts. 
 I ask my hon. Friend not to press his amendment because it could over-complicate a trial. Such cases generally require proof of a mental element such as malicious intent, and the accused may argue in his defence that his actions were reasonable and proportionate. There would be no material benefits for justice if the court could not consider the reasonableness of the threat, but instead had to apply the law relevant to the reasonableness of the act that, if carried out, could be an offence. 
 We do not think that the amendment is wrongheaded or inappropriate, but it would make the process more difficult. I will carefully consider the Hansard report of my hon. Friend's introduction to the amendment, to see whether we can incorporate any aspect of it. Our initial view is that it would not help the process in the way in which he intends and wants.

Stephen Ladyman: I have discussed the matter with several lawyers. It would help me to understand the Government's view if I were given a practical example of a threat of an illegal act that is considered proportionate. I cannot think of one. Unless I can do so, I feel that the provision I have suggested should be in the legislation.

Charles Clarke: I shall not attempt to give an example now, but I will think about the matter that my hon. Friend has raised and write to him about a case that could be complicated by his amendment. We have talked about the amendment outside the Committee, and I appreciate that he has wrestled hard to try to find a formulation to meet his goals more successfully. I was aware that he had discussed it with lawyer colleagues.
 New clauses 14 and 15, which were tabled by the Opposition, would try to deal with the problem by adding a sanction to strengthen the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Our provisional view is that they do not take us further than the law stands now. In practice, groups considering conspiracy would render themselves liable to prosecution under the 1997 Act in the course of making and checking the necessary arrangements. 
 The points made by the Opposition and my hon. Friends have force. I am prepared to consider carefully whether we can strengthen the Bill on Report with an amendment to plug the loophole. The loophole is the problem that people seek to address, but our initial view is that no such amendment can be made and that the assertions are not correct. We need to think carefully about the speeches made and examples given, to see whether we can return on Report with a clause that will close any holes in the system.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. Of course it is helpful that he will consider the matter. Given what the hon. Members for South Thanet and for Peterborough, my hon. Friend for North-East Hertfordshire and I have said, I am sure that the Minister appreciates the concern expressed by a number of organisations, especially the Research Defence Society. They firmly believe—and this has been reiterated by police officers at a senior level—that if different individuals repeatedly harass the same person, the current law and the Government's proposed changes to it would not apply. We—and, more importantly, those at the sharp end—think that there is a loophole to be closed.

Charles Clarke: I entirely understand that point, and it is correct that we should consider it. As I said, I am prepared to do so. I hope that, given my assurance that I will reconsider the matter and return to it on Report, the hon. Gentleman will be prepared not to press the new clause.

Nick Hawkins: Unfortunately, although the Minister is being constructive, I will press this matter to a Division, because we think that recording a vote will be helpful and will concentrate minds. While making that clear in relation to new clause 14—we shall come to new clause 15 in a moment—I recognise and want to put on the record the fact that we appreciate that the Minister is trying to help.

Charles Clarke: Having given way on that point, I must say that it is extraordinary to hear what the Opposition intend to do. The whole approach to the conduct of this Committee and other Committees on which I have served has been that if the Minister gives an assurance to consider the situation and return to it on Report, that is usually accepted. If the hon. Gentleman has decided—perhaps for politically partisan reasons along the lines of his opening remarks—that he wants political sharpness, of course he is entitled to do so, but let it stand on the record that I urge him not to press the new clause and ask my hon. Friends who are sympathetic to the points that have been made to resist it, on the basis of my specific assurance—which I do not think that I need to give again—that I am prepared to consider the matter and return to it on Report.
 If I may say so, I am rather disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has decided to take that course, but with that I urge the Committee to vote for Government new clauses 6, 7 and 20, which have received general support, not to support amendment (a) to new clause 7—which is mistakenly printed on the selection list as Government new clause 7(a)—for the reasons that I have given, if my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet decides to press it, to vote against new clauses 14, 15, and 19 if they are pressed, and to vote for Government amendments Nos. 176 and 243.

Nick Hawkins: I do not want to confuse matters, but does what the Minister said about new clause 14 also incorporate his response to new clause 15? If he has wrapped the two together, that is fine, but I wanted to clarify whether he was going to say anything separate about new clause 15.

Charles Clarke: What I said was in relation to both new clauses 14 and 15. We doubt whether there is merit in the clauses, but we think that the argument is seriously made and we want to reconsider whether either of them closes a loophole that we need to close. I give the assurance that I will do so seriously, with a view—after cross-party discussion if so desired—to tabling a new clause on Report.

Stephen Ladyman: I hear what my hon. Friend says. If he will undertake to provide me with concrete examples concerning my amendment, I am prepared not to press it now and to reintroduce it again on Report if such examples cannot be provided. I am a little distrustful, because I talk to lawyers who say, ``It's all right, little boy. Don't worry your pretty head'', but they cannot give me any examples. That makes me think that something is wrong.
 I hope that the Opposition will not press their new clause to a Division, because the professional bodies that have talked to us and have tried to work closely with the Government and advise the Committee on a cross-party basis will not appreciate the matter being pushed into the political domain. My hon. Friend has given assurances that he will examine the issues, read the transcript of the debate carefully and introduce further improvements on Report. It is in everybody's interests to work together on the matter from now on.

Jimmy Hood: I shall now put the question.

Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I am again seeking clarification. The question that you are about to put to the Committee relates to Government new clause 6—the lead amendment. Can I ask you to put the questions on new clauses 14 and 15 separately?

Jimmy Hood: New clauses 14, 15 and 19 will come later on. I shall now put the question on new clause 6.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7 - Malicious communications

`.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 (offence of sending letters and other articles with intent to cause distress or anxiety)— 
 (a) in paragraph (a), for ``letter or other article'' there shall be substituted ``letter, electronic communication or article of any description''; and 
 (b) in paragraph (b), for the word ``other article'' there shall be substituted ``article or electronic communication''. 
 (2) In subsection (2) of that section (defence of making a threat in the belief that it was a proper way of reinforcing a demand and that there were reasonable grounds for making that demand)— 
 (a) in paragraph (a), for ``which he believed he had reasonable grounds for making'' there shall be substituted ``made by him on reasonable grounds''; and 
 (b) in paragraph (b), after ``believed'' there shall be inserted ``, and had reasonable grounds for believing,''. 
 (3) After that subsection there shall be inserted— 
 ``(2A) In this section `electronic communication' includes— 
 (a) any oral or other communication by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984); and 
 (b) any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form. 
 (4) In subsection (3) of that section (definition of ``send'')— 
 (a) after ``delivering'' there shall be inserted ``or transmitting''; and 
 (b) for ``or delivered'' there shall be substituted ``, delivered or transmitted''. 
 (5) In subsection (5) of that section (penalty for offence), for ``a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale'' there shall be substituted ``imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both''. 
 (6) Subsection (5) does not affect the penalty for an offence committed before the day on which this Act is passed.'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8 - Registration for criminal records purposes

`.—(1) After section 120 of the 1997 Act there shall be inserted the following section— 
 ``Refusal and cancellation of registration 
 120A.—(1) The Secretary of State may refuse to include a person in the register maintained for the purposes of this Part if it appears to him that the registration of that person is likely to make it possible for information to become available to an individual who, in the Secretary of State's opinion, is not a suitable person to have access to that information. 
 (2) The Secretary of State may remove a person from the register if it appears to the Secretary of State— 
 (a) that the registration of that person is likely to make it possible for information to become available to an individual who, in the Secretary of State's opinion, is not a suitable person to have access to that information; or 
 (b) that the registration of that person has resulted in information becoming known to such an individual. 
 (3) In determining for the purposes of this section whether an individual is a suitable person to have access to any information, the Secretary of State may have regard, in particular, to— 
 (a) any information relating to that person which concerns a relevant matter; 
 (b) whether that person is included in any list mentioned in section 113(3A) or (3C); and 
 (c) any information provided to the Secretary of State under subsection (4). 
 (4) It shall be the duty of the chief officer of any police force to comply, as soon as practicable after receiving it, with any request by the Secretary of State to provide the Secretary of State with information which— 
 (a) is available to the chief officer; 
 (b) relates to— 
 (i) an applicant for registration; 
 (ii) a registered person; or 
 (iii) an individual who is likely to have access to information in consequence of the countersigning of applications by a particular applicant for registration or by a particular registered person; 
 (c) concerns a matter which the Secretary of State has notified to the chief officer to be a matter which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is relevant to the determination of the suitability of individuals for having access to the information that may be provided in consequence of the countersigning of applications under this Part. 
 (5) In this section `relevant matter' has the same meaning as in section 113.'' 
 (2) In section 119 of that Act (sources of information)— 
 (a) in subsections (1) and (4) (supply of information to the Secretary of State for the purposes of applications under Part V), for ``for the purposes of an application under this Part'' there shall be substituted ``for the purpose of enabling him to carry out his functions under this Part in relation to— 
 (a) any application for a certificate or for registration; or 
 (b) the determination of whether a person should continue to be a registered person.''; 
 (b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted— 
 ``(1A) Any person who keeps a list mentioned in section 113(3A) or (3C) above shall make the contents of that list available to the Secretary of State for the purpose of enabling him to carry out his functions under this Part in relation to— 
 (a) any application for a certificate or for registration; or 
 (b) the determination of whether a person should continue to be a registered person.'' 
 (c) in subsection (3) (payment for information provided under subsection (2)), for ``subsection (2)'' there shall be substituted ``section 120A(4) or subsection (2) of this section''. 
 (3) In section 120(2) of that Act (duty to grant registration), after ``Subject to'' there shall be inserted ``section 120A and''. 
 (4) In section 120(3) of that Act (regulations about registration), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted— 
 ``(aa) the nomination, in the case of a body corporate or unincorporate, of the individuals authorised to act for the body in relation to the countersigning of applications under this Part; 
 (ab) the refusal by the Secretary of State, on such grounds as may be specified in or determined under the regulations, to accept or to continue to accept the nomination of a person as so authorised;''.'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 189.

Charles Clarke: I shall be brief, but I need to explain what the new clause is designed to deal with. New clause 8 is a technical amendment to part V of the Police Act 1997, but it is also important in its own right. It will increase confidence in the arrangements that are being implemented under part V, and will add to the safeguards that that part will bring to the protection of children and vulnerable adults.
 Under part V, many more employers, including voluntary organisations, will have access to police information. That will help them in making decisions about the suitability of people applying for jobs. The Criminal Records Bureau is being set up to implement part V. 
 The CRB will issue three levels of certificates, as hon. Members will be aware. It is important that applications for the certificates will have to be countersigned by a person registered with the CRB for that purpose. The registered person has a key role, and the CRB needs to know about the people seeking registration. 
 Part V as it stands does not provide what is required. The new provisions will mean that applicants for registration can be checked to the same level as those whose applications for certificates they will endorse. Applicants can be refused if their registration is likely to result in information becoming available to someone who is considered unsuitable; and similarly, someone can be removed from the register. Provision is also made for similar safeguards in relation to persons nominated by a registered body to act as a counter-signatory on behalf of that body. The new safeguards are important, and I hope that the Committee will agree to them. 
 The purpose of Government amendment No. 189 is to extend the provisions in new clause 8 to Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales. I hope that that is clear, and I am happy to respond to any points that members of the Committee would like to raise.

Oliver Heald: Obviously, Government amendment No. 189 presents no difficulty. However, I was not entirely sure of the purpose of new clause 8. As I understand it, certificates of conviction can be sought if, for example, an employer wishes to know the background of an individual, and a registered person is somebody who is entitled to request such a certificate or co-sign an application for one. In adding to legislation an ability to refuse or cancel a registration, are the Government concerned about the potential for such information to get into the wrong hands, as occurred in Portsmouth, where information about alleged paedophiles got into the public domain? Is it an attempt to ensure that information about previous convictions cannot get into the public domain by tightening up the provisions for those who seek to be registered?

Charles Clarke: I apologise to the Committee for not making myself clear when I introduced the new clause. The registered person occupies a crucial position in the new arrangements. The CRB will need to rely heavily on registered persons to assess applications correctly and to safeguard the information that is supplied to them. When preparing for the introduction of the CRB, we became conscious of the risk that criminal and other unscrupulous elements may seek to register with the CRB to take advantage of such a position of trust and become front organisations for paedophile activity.
 Registration would provide a respectable front and give access to sensitive police information. A dedicated paedophile ring would obviously derive enormous advantage from information that the police were following the activity of one of its associates. Less obviously, it would also draw comfort from the absence of such information, which would suggest that the police were not aware of its activities. Clearly, the CRB needs to know about those seeking registration, so that it can be sure that they can be relied on. Similarly, the police need to be sure about the people to whom they are supplying information. All of that would enable employers and voluntary organisations using the CRB's services to have greater confidence in the integrity of the arrangements. It has become apparent that part V, as originally drafted and passed by the House when the CRB was set up, does not provide in full what is required to ensure that that will be the case. 
 The new provisions are designed to ensure that applicants for registration are checked to the same level as those applications for certificates that they will endorse, including the right to refuse and so on. The need for such a policy became clear only when we worked through the precise methodology of the CRB, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is going through such a process at present. The alternative to that law being passed would leave a serious danger that we would not investigate people that needed to be investigated and there might be a channel through which seriously dangerous elements could get inside what is designed to be a watertight system.

Oliver Heald: The Minister has given a satisfactory explanation of the new clause. It seems a sensible measure and we shall support it.

Simon Hughes: I should like to make a practical point first, after which I have two questions for the Minister. When the Government introduce new clauses in Committee, they are not covered in the original notes on clauses. Will the Minister be kind enough to ensure that a summary of their import is available to us on Report when other new clauses are introduced, especially given that some of them are not as clear as they might be? In general, new clauses are fairly transparent, but the new clause under discussion took me and my colleagues some time to work through. Without wishing to do him a disservice, our senior researcher did not understand immediately every line of it.
 If a charity, which might be an employer, applies to be registered, would that itself be a guarantee of registration? Will a previous acceptance of status entitle an employer to be included automatically on the register? Some widespread concern has been expressed about charities that are not charities or organisations that are not what they pretend to be. I assume that the same will apply to registered companies, but will a separate exercise be carried out in that respect, so that there is some assurance that information will not be transferred to what are clearly front organisations or evilly motivated companies or individuals? If the Minister can give me assurances about the charitable sector and the corporate sector, it would be helpful.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point and I accept his rebuke that it would be a good idea when the Government table new clauses to set out information about them equivalent to that which is set out in the notes on clauses. I will do what I can to ensure that we operate such a system in future.
 As for the hon. Gentleman's questions about charities or limited companies, there are no guarantees. No one is entitled because of the status of the organisation to assume that he would automatically receive such a status. We hope and believe that many of the major charities and organisations would pass all the tests, but it is precisely to establish clarity that we want to give the CRB the powers that are explicit in the Bill. With that, I hope that the Committee is in agreement. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 9 - Remands and committals to secure accommodation etc

`.—(1) Section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (remands and committals to local authority accommodation) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) below. 
 (2) In subsection (5) (conditions for the imposition of a security requirement), for paragraph (b) and the words after it there shall be substituted— 
 ``(b) he is charged with or has been convicted of one or more imprisonable offences which, together with any other imprisonable offences of which he has been convicted in any proceedings— 
 (i) amount, or 
 (ii) would, if he were convicted of the offences with which he is charged, amount, 
 to a recent history of repeatedly committing imprisonable offences while remanded on bail or to local authority accommodation, 
 and (in either case) the condition set out in subsection (5AA) below is satisfied.'' 
 (3) After that subsection there shall be inserted— 
 ``(5AA) The condition mentioned in subsection (5) above is that the court is of the opinion, after considering all the options for the remand of the person, that only remanding him to local authority accommodation with a security requirement would be adequate— 
 (a) to protect the public from serious harm from him; or 
 (b) to prevent the commission by him of imprisonable offences.'' 
 (4) In subsection (6)(a) (statement in open court that the court is of the opinion mentioned in subsection (5)), for ``(5)'' there shall be substituted ``(5AA)''. 
 (5) That section as it has effect pursuant to section 98 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (alternative provision for 15 and 16 year old boys), shall so have effect with the further modifications set out in subsections (6) and (7). 
 (6) For subsection (5AA) there shall be substituted— 
 ``(5AA) The condition mentioned in subsection (5) above is that the court is of the opinion, after considering all the options for the remand of the person, that only remanding him to a remand centre or prison, or to local authority accommodation with a requirement that he be placed and kept in secure accommodation would be adequate— 
 (a) to protect the public from serious harm from him; or 
 (b) to prevent the commission by him of imprisonable offences.'' 
 (7) In subsection (6)(a) (statement in open court that the court is of the opinion mentioned in subsection (5)), for ``that subsection'' there shall be substituted ``subsection (5AA) above''.'.— [Mr. Charles Clarke.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Jimmy Hood: With this we may discuss the following: Government new clause 10—Monitoring of compliance with bail conditions.
 Government new clause 11—Monitoring of compliance with conditions of non-secure remand.

Charles Clarke: These new clauses will extend to the court a balanced package of options to deal with young people who defy the courts and commit repeated offences while on bail or in non-secure accommodation.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Hood. Is the Committee considering new clause 12, too?

Jimmy Hood: It has been drawn to my attention that we should also be discussing new clause 12. You are right, Mr.Heald. The notes about what new clauses were to be discussed were on my left-hand side, not my right-hand side.
 With this new clause, we will also be taking Government new clause 12—Arrangements for detention in secure training centres.

Charles Clarke: If you always keep to your left, Mr. Hood, you will be well served—as long as there is no divergence to the right at any time.

Nick Hawkins: It is to the right that we look, and it is no doubt where the nation looks.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman will find that the nation looks through the eye of the Chair of the Committee, not through the eyes of members of the Committee. We are humble. The Chairman is the person who gives us our orientation in all important respects.

Oliver Heald: Hang on.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is jibbing at that rather general description.
 As I said, the purpose of the new clauses is to extend to the court a balanced package of options to deal with young people who defy the courts and commit repeated offences while on bail or in non-secure accommodation, but who cannot currently be remanded into custody because their individual offences are not serious enough. The new provisions will enable courts to deal more effectively with medium level, persistent juvenile offenders. That is one reason why it fits in well with the general approach that is being taken under the Bill. It will help the members of the public who fall victim and help reinforce public confidence in the criminal justice system. 
 New clause 9 extends the criteria by which courts may remand a child or young person aged 12 to 16 years into secure detention. It will enable courts, in addition to their current powers and subject to appropriate tests, to place any such person on secure remand when they are of the view that the child or young person has a recent history of repeatedly committing imprisonable offences while on bail or in local authority accommodation. Such offences include theft, assault and criminal damage. 
 New clause 10 sets out a series of safeguards. We do not argue that any offending on bail would justify a remand into secure accommodation. The clause confines the new power to imprisonable offences, which catches the sort of offences about which we so often hear. The existing power requires the court to be satisfied in every case that only a secure remand will protect the public from serious harm from the child or young person. It adds an alternative condition that the court must be satisfied that only a secure remand would be adequate to prevent the commission of further imprisonable offences. 
 Most important, the clause will require courts to consider all the possible options before deciding whether to remand the child or young person into secure accommodation. There is a significant range of alternatives to custody that we have strengthened in order to ensure that community alternatives are used whenever possible. We would therefore expect the courts to use that power to put the youngsters into secure remand only as a last resort. The whole thrust of our youth justice proposals is to establish a range of different options that are available to the court to ensure that the young person can best deal with the situation. 
 New clauses 10 and 11 give the courts the option of using electronic monitoring of bail conditions and those in local authority non-secure accommodation as an alternative to secure detention. That also strengthens the range of options and we believe that that will ensure that the situation can be addressed more constructively. 
 New clause 12 allows local authorities to arrange for 12 to 16-year-olds who are remanded by the courts into local authority secure accommodation to be placed in a secure training centre if the local authority so wishes. However, the local authority must first seek the consent of the Secretary of State. The purpose of the clause is to give greater flexibility to the operation of the juvenile secure estate. That is consistent with the philosophy of local authority secure remands as an alternative to Prison Service custody for younger and more vulnerable juveniles. STCs operate under contract to the Youth Justice Board and the standards that they operate to and meet are fully consistent with those of the local authority secure units. I have tried to summarise relatively briefly the purpose of the new clauses, which I have pleasure in commending.

Nick Hawkins: Let me say straight away that we do not oppose the new clauses, but we have one or two questions about them. The issue of secure accommodation for juvenile offenders has, as the Minister and one or two other members of the Committee may already know, been a long-standing personal interest of mine, not least because when, in the late 1970s, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I both worked at the Bar in the midlands, and often prosecuted in juvenile courts, major problems were often encountered because of a lack of sufficient secure accommodation for the most serious juvenile offenders.
 The Minister said that the new clause provides a last-resort disposal. Unfortunately, in my experience over several years, several juveniles would regularly come before the courts with page after page of previous convictions. The most serious offenders would regularly escape from the only secure accommodation then available in the midlands. My hon. Friend may remember that there was a place called Tiffield, from which the most serious juvenile offenders used repeatedly to escape. He nods—like me, he remembers those cases. 
 Going around the courts in the midlands, we frequently found that the courts were desperate for such a last-resort provision. As we believe that there is a need for the provision, and feel that it may be used rather more than the Minister's speech implied, Opposition Members are especially worried about whether he will be able to say that he has the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Deputy Prime Minister and that specific extra resources will be provided. 
 In discussing an expansion of secure accommodation, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and I, as Surrey Members, are bound to observe—we have been part of a delegation to see this very Minister—that Government funding is severely lacking for shire counties such as ours. I shall not detain the Committee with all the details—you would rule me out of order if I were to do so, Mr. Hood—but it would not be right for me to let the opportunity of the Minister discussing new provision for local authorities pass without at least mentioning the fact that both district and borough councils and our county council are crying out for resources. Whenever extra duties are placed on them, no extra funding is provided. 
 The Minister knows that our police authority has not yet received the full reimbursement that the Home Secretary promised on record, on television and radio and in the press, for the cost of policing Senator Pinochet, which the Government imposed on Surrey police authority. In a written answer, he accepted that that cost at least £750,000, but only £200,000 has yet been paid. 
 In dealing with secure accommodation, we want the courts and local authorities to have the full range of disposals open to them. We recognise, however, that the chief inspector of prisons has repeatedly expressed anxiety over the past few years about other accommodation for juveniles. We want the Minister to say when he responds to what will undoubtedly be only a short debate that he will give an undertaking that all the anxieties that have been expressed by Sir David Ramsbottom and others will be met as and when the new secure accommodation is provided and that the new accommodation will not fall into the same traps as the chief inspector has, unfortunately, commented on in places such as Feltham. Another absolutely damning report to which my right hon. and hon. Friends will have paid attention came from Sir David as recently as last week. 
 We have some anxieties. We recognise that the Government are trying to toughen matters up, and we believe that that will be helpful. Without the money and commitment to standards that back that up, however, it will not work. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on the record, on which we and the public can rely in the future. We look forward to his response on those crucial points.

Simon Hughes: These are important new clauses, although they are a self-contained group within the rest of the Bill—

Oliver Heald: It is five minutes to seven, there are nine new clauses, 24 clauses and 42 amendments to go, and we have an hour and 35 minutes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been no time wasting today, and that the number of clauses that we were scheduled to get through is absolutely unrealistic? Will he join me in putting pressure on the Minister to think again about the Committee having a last sitting on 13 March in order to allow proper time to consider the Bill?

Simon Hughes: I share that view, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), who is available to talk to the Government Whip and the Conservative Whip to try to reach an agreement. We have made the point before that although we have sat later than 7 o'clock on some occasions, the time taken by Divisions, for instance, means that there have been few extra minutes. It does the legislative process no service if we go as quickly as we possibly can through such important new clauses, some of which we may not reach. Whole amendments and clauses might not be debated until Report stage.
 New clause 9 depends on secure accommodation being available locally. I understand that the provision relates to persistent young offenders rather than young offenders generally. Will the Minister assure me that local secure accommodation exists in each area of the country? One of the benefits of the regime is that it is local. It is no good sending youngsters a long way away—those in custody benefit from having their family visit them. All the evidence—not only from the chief inspector of prisons—suggests that having family nearby is hugely important in rehabilitation. Will the Minister undertake to supply a list of the accommodation available in each local authority area? 
 Subsection (6) continues to provide the option of youngsters being remanded to prison. I thought that remanding 15 and 16-year-olds to prison was going to end, and that we were moving towards a more intelligent and enlightened regime. What has happened to the Government's commitment to avoid that practice, for which they and their predecessors have been sufficiently rebuked?

Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a respectable alternative perspective on the question of where the most serious young offenders should go into secure accommodation? I accept that there is a view that such accommodation should be close to the offender's family, but others in the criminal justice system take the view—as do I—that taking them away from their criminal associates and the places on which they have preyed can sometimes be better. Does he accept that both views are respectable?

Simon Hughes: I understand that, although for those in custody the only implication is in relation to people who visit under visiting orders and so on. If a person is in custody at the other end of the country, his peer group is unlikely to be there and his family are even less likely to be. However, my point is in relation to local secure accommodation. The question is still pertinent.
 On new clause 10, I seek confirmation from the Minister in relation to the preconditions. My hon. Friend and I do not have a problem if certain preconditions are required. For young people to be tagged for monitoring on bail, they must be 12 or older, their offence must be serious, they must have a history of offending, and they must be approved by the youth offending team. Those seem to be the right conditions. However, tagging appears to be less successful for young people than for older people, as many more young people than older people see it as a game. I would be grateful for a ministerial reflection on whether it has been very successful, successful or of indeterminate success. 
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

Simon Hughes: I was reflecting before the break on the demands made on us. An example of that is the fact that, during the break, I gave a talk on Isaiah 35 and 40 at the Jewish Book Week festival 2001, organised by the Jewish Book Club—

Charles Clarke: Was the hon. Gentleman blasphemous?

Simon Hughes: No, I was not. I regarded it as something that I could just about squeeze in when I saw what my diary for today looked like and, mercifully, even London traffic allowed me to get back on time.

Nick Hawkins: Has the hon. Gentleman remembered the name of the Manchester-based crime writer that he was asking me and other hon. Members about after we broke for dinner?

Simon Hughes: No. I will let other members of the Committee into the secret later. I ask for only 30 seconds' indulgence, Mr. Hood—and only because we sometimes need encouragement in this job. The thought of that writer was prompted by the question that someone once asked about which biblical character people saw as a role model. A woman whose name I should not have forgotten—a famous Manchester-based crime writer—said Moses, because she loved mountain walking and because he came down with a best-seller.
 Before the break, I was commenting on new clause 9 and asked the Minister a couple of important questions on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and myself. I sought reassurance on new clause 10. New clause 11 seems very much in the same vein as new clause 10 and deals with a tagging regime—which is a perfectly acceptable option on non-secure remand. I would like to ask questions about new clause 12, which deals with the famous secure training centres. Unless my memory fails me, Labour vigorously derided and opposed secure training centres a couple of years ago when they were in opposition and called them colleges of crime, saying that they were unacceptable features of the criminal justice system. Lo and behold, they now make a Labour-endorsed appearance. In addition to that opposition from Labour, they had a very troubled start—you and other members of the Committee, Mr. Hood, may remember reading of the unhappy history of the Medway secure training centre. The fact that such centres were so doubtfully welcomed by Labour and that they were not performing well means that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and I need some persuading to accept that they have suddenly become something that we need to be setting up through new clauses. 
 Secure training centres are meant to be an alternative to remand in secure local authority accommodation. It is always better for young people in this category to be held in suitable secure local authority accommodation, provided that it exists. The question for the Minister that flows from that is whether the proposal for secure training centres, in spite of their unhappy start and Labour's original lack of support for them, is being made because in many parts of the country there is no local authority secure accommodation. In what areas is provision lacking and who is to blame—the Government for not funding or planning it or councils for not fulfilling Government expectations, despite funding and planning? We need to be told why a regime for which the Government argued only a few years ago is not happening, while a regime that they opposed a few years ago is happening. 
 We now have the Youth Justice Board, which is largely regarded as having done good work in England and Wales. It is a key player in all the policy decisions. Has the board given advice on the new clause? Does it fully support it? Can we see a record of its support? Are there letters from Lord Warner to the Minister, saying what a good thing secure training centres are? What reassurance is there that they will not be like the Medway centre, which has not been successful? Has the Medway failure been remedied? If not, will it be? Is the Medway centre now working perfectly? Everyone concerned needs to know that we are not being asked to sign up to a new clause for a regime that does not work. 
 On the issue of what we do with young persistent troublemakers who cannot be kept in the community, we have had a bad record in recent years in dealing with young people in custody. Most of them go on to reoffend regularly when they come out. If we are to detain and lock up young people, we need significantly to improve the regimes that we offer. They all come out bar a handful, and pretty quickly. Before signing up to the new clause, we need to be reassured that the proposed centres are likely to be effective parts of the criminal justice system, not colleges of crime, and that they will both deter and rehabilitate young people, provide them with all the opportunities that they need while in custody and be better than the alternatives currently available.

Charles Clarke: At the outset, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, rightly, that there were two important issues at stake: money and standards. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has concluded by talking again about standards. We are entirely committed to proper standards. I cannot honestly say that we have proper standards throughout the whole system, but we have a major programme to drive up standards in all forms of detention for all the reasons that he gave.
 The hon. Gentleman talked about the entirely new regime. It is no secret that the establishment of the Youth Justice Board has changed our attitude to the various approaches. From 1 April 2000, the board assumed responsibility for the budget for purchasing secure accommodation for those under 18 who were sentenced or remanded in custody. Places are purchased from the providers of such accommodation: the Prison Service, local authorities and the private sector. The board pays for those places according to costs agreed in a contract for a service level agreement each year or over a longer period, which also sets out the standard of accommodation and the regime to be provided. Those arrangements will help to ensure that there is an appropriate volume and geographical spread of places for different categories of children and young people requiring secure accommodation. I shall return to that in a moment. I am prepared to circulate a list of accommodation and where it is, as the hon. Gentleman asked. 
 The purpose is to bring greater clarity to bear on what is being achieved with public money spent on secure accommodation and, over time, to obtain better value for money by monitoring service delivery against clear standards. Now one body—the Youth Justice Board—can focus clearly on the needs of children and young people in custody. We are at the beginning of the process. As I said, the board was formally given responsibility for the budget less than a year ago. There is a great deal of work to be done. 
 The hon. Gentleman also asked about consultation of the Youth Justice Board. We consulted it at meetings. The provision has been developed in full consultation with the board. I have discussed the matter with Lord Warner on a number of occasions. There is no formal documentation in the form of letters that I can circulate, because that is not how we discussed matters, but it is fair for me to give the Committee the unequivocal assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks: our proposals have the full support of the Youth Justice Board. I agree that that is important and it is part of the overall approach that we have set out. 
 The hon. Gentleman also asked, in relation to new clause 10, whether the hierarchy must be identified—for example, the individual must be over 12; the offence must be serious; there must have been a history; and there must be approval by the youth offending team—and the answer is yes. 
 The hon. Gentleman also asked about the regime. In 1998, we introduced provisions for vulnerable 15 and 16-year-old boys to be remanded to local authority secure accommodation. Non-vulnerable boys are held in the under-18 juvenile estate managed by the Prison Service; they are not held in adult prisons. Children aged 12 to 14 are not remanded to Prison Service accommodation. 
 I concede that there is a long way to go before I can put my hand on my heart and say that we have established a system in which I can have confidence. The hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to the reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, which have shown that serious problems remain. Through the Youth Justice Board regime, however, and the measures in the Bill, we can steadily improve the position—for example, in respect of money and the availability of places, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. 
 We are planning to increase the number of places in secure training centres by several hundred over the next few years, and we expect 64 places to become available next year. That will enable the centres to take additional sentenced juveniles and some juveniles remanded into local authority secure accommodation. We are planning to expand because there is currently a shortage. Has the Chancellor signed up to this? I should not need to tell the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that no proposal would be advanced in Committee unless the Chancellor were committed to it, both formally and actually. We recognise the hon. Gentleman's point—that the provision must be funded if the operation is to succeed as we would wish.

Nick Hawkins: How much net extra funding will the Government provide to local authorities? If the Minister cannot tell us tonight, will he write to us later?

Charles Clarke: I cannot give the figures off the cuff, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, but I undertake to write to him and other members of the Committee with a full statement of the resource position, explaining what public commitments have been made and where we are seeking to go.

Simon Hughes: Is it Government policy that, at some stage—I accept that the Minister may not yet have a date or a target—placing 15 and 16-year-olds in prison will end? If so, is there a target or aspiration date? Will he also explain the troubled start to the secure training centres, the Medway experience and associated problems?

Charles Clarke: I cannot make a definitive statement on the first point. It is not that the Government do not have a view on the right way to go, but there is little value in making absolute statements about targets. We are trying to deal seriously with the problem through the Youth Justice Board proposals. I hope that we will soon be more coherent on the subject than I can be now. I cannot immediately give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
 As to the troubled start to the process—in Medway and elsewhere—we are seeking to manage it effectively in order to end the problems as soon as possible. The complicated tapestry of different organisations—secure centres, local authority centres, prisons and so forth—has been unsatisfactory, and we need to use tagging and other measures. The Youth Justice Board approach should enable us to move towards a more coherent position. The truth is that we have further to go before I can say that we have arrived. 
 I hope that the Committee will approve the new clauses, which will significantly improve the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 10 - Monitoring of compliance with bail conditions

`.—(1) In section 3 of the Bail Act 1976 (general provisions), after subsection (6) there shall be inserted— 
 ``(6ZAA) Subject to section 3AA below, if he is a child or young person he may be required to comply with requirements imposed for the purpose of securing the electronic monitoring of his compliance with any other requirement imposed on him as a condition of bail.'' 
 (2) After that section there shall be inserted— 
 ``Electronic monitoring of compliance with bail conditions 
 3AA.—(1) A court shall not impose on a child or young person a requirement under section 3(6ZAA) above (an `electronic monitoring requirement') unless each of the following conditions is satisfied. 
 (2) The first condition is that the child or young person has attained the age of twelve years. 
 (3) The second condition is that— 
 (a) the child or young person is charged with or has been convicted of a violent or sexual offence, or an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more; or 
 (b) he is charged with or has been convicted of one or more imprisonable offences which, together with any other imprisonable offences of which he has been convicted in any proceedings— 
 (i) amount, or 
 (ii) would, if he were convicted of the offences with which he is charged, amount, 
 to a recent history of repeatedly committing imprisonable offences while remanded on bail or to local authority accommodation. 
 (4) The third condition is that the court— 
 (a) has been notified by the Secretary of State that electronic monitoring arrangements are available in each petty sessions area which is a relevant area; and 
 (b) is satisfied that the necessary provision can be made under those arrangements. 
 (5) The fourth condition is that a youth offending team has informed the court that in its opinion the imposition of such a requirement will be suitable in the case of the child or young person. 
 (6) Where a court imposes an electronic monitoring requirement, the requirement shall include provision for making a person responsible for the monitoring; and a person who is made so responsible shall be of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. 
 (7) The Secretary of State may make rules for regulating— 
 (a) the electronic monitoring of compliance with requirements imposed on a child or young person as a condition of bail; and 
 (b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) above, the functions of persons made responsible for securing the electronic monitoring of compliance with such requirements. 
 (8) Rules under this section may make different provision for different cases. 
 (9) Any power of the Secretary of State to make an order or rules under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument. 
 (10) A statutory instrument containing rules made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. 
 (11) In this section `local authority accommodation' has the same meaning as in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. 
 (12) For the purposes of this section a petty sessions area is a relevant area in relation to a proposed electronic monitoring requirement if the court considers that it will not be practicable to secure the electronic monitoring in question unless electronic monitoring arrangements are available in that area.'' 
 (13) In subsection (7) of that section (cases where parent or guardian may be required to secure compliance with requirements), after ``(6)'' there shall be inserted ``, (6ZAA)''. 
 (14) In section 3A(3) of that Act (which modifies section 3 of that Act in its application to bail granted by a custody officer), after ``subsections'' there shall be inserted ``(6ZAA),''.'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 11 - Monitoring of compliance with conditions of non-secure remand

`.—(1) In subsection (7) of section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (conditions that may be imposed by a court remanding a person to non-secure local authority accommodation)— 
 (a) at the beginning there shall be inserted ``Subject to section 23AA below,''; and 
 (b) for the words from ``any'' to the end there shall be substituted— 
 ``(a) any such conditions as could be imposed under section 3(6) of the Bail Act 1976 if he were then being granted bail; and 
 (b) any conditions imposed for the purpose of securing the electronic monitoring of his compliance with any other condition imposed under this subsection.'' 
 (2) After that section there shall be inserted— 
 ``Electronic monitoring of conditions of remand 
 23AA.—(1) A court shall not impose a condition on a person under section 23(7)(b) above (an `electronic monitoring condition') unless each of the following requirements is fulfilled. 
 (2) The first requirement is that the person has attained the age of twelve years. 
 (3) The second requirement is that— 
 (a) the person is charged with or has been convicted of a violent or sexual offence, or an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more; or 
 (b) he is charged with or has been convicted of one or more imprisonable offences which, together with any other imprisonable offences of which he has been convicted in any proceedings— 
 (i) amount, or 
 (ii) would, if he were convicted of the offences with which he is charged, amount, 
 to a recent history of repeatedly committing imprisonable offences while remanded on bail or to local authority accommodation. 
 (4) The third requirement is that the court— 
 (a) has been notified by the Secretary of State that electronic monitoring arrangements are available in each petty sessions area which is a relevant area; and 
 (b) is satisfied that the necessary provision can be made under those arrangements. 
 (5) The fourth requirement is that a youth offending team has informed the court that in its opinion the imposition of such a condition will be suitable in the person's case. 
 (6) Where a court imposes an electronic monitoring condition, the condition shall include provision for making a person responsible for the monitoring; and a person who is made so responsible shall be of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. 
 (7) The Secretary of State may make rules for regulating— 
 (a) the electronic monitoring of compliance with conditions imposed under section 23(7)(a) above; and 
 (b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) above, the functions of persons made responsible for securing the electronic monitoring of compliance with such conditions. 
 (8) Subsections (8) to (10) of section 3AA of the Bail Act 1976 (provision about rules and orders under that section) shall apply in relation to this section as they apply in relation to that section. 
 (9) For the purposes of this section a petty sessions area is a relevant area in relation to a proposed electronic monitoring condition if the court considers that it will not be practicable to secure the electronic monitoring in question unless electronic monitoring arrangements are available in that area.'' 
 (3) In section 69 of that Act (orders and regulations), after subsection (4) there shall be inserted— 
 ``(4A) Nothing in this section applies to an order under section 23AA.'''.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12 - Arrangements for detention in secure training centres

`.—(1) In section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (remands and committals to local authority accommodation), after subsection (7) there shall be inserted— 
 ``(7A) Where a person is remanded to local authority accommodation and a security requirement is imposed in respect of him— 
 (a) the designated local authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, arrange for the person to be detained, for the whole or any part of the period of the remand or committal, in a secure training centre; and 
 (b) his detention there pursuant to the arrangements shall be lawful. 
 (7B) Arrangements under subsection (7A) above may include provision for payments to be made by the authority to the Secretary of State.'' 
 (2) In section 88(1)(c) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (meaning of ``remand in custody''), after ``secure accommodation'' there shall be inserted ``or detained in a secure training centre pursuant to arrangements under subsection (7A) of that section''. 
 (3) In section 101(11)(c) of that Act (account to be taken of remands in the court's determination of the term of a detention and training order), after ``secure accommodation'' there shall be inserted ``or detained in a secure training centre pursuant to arrangements under subsection (7A) of that section''.'.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 20 - Addresses of directors and secretaries of companies

`.—(1) The Companies Act 1985 shall be amended as follows. 
 (2) After section 723A there shall be inserted— 
 ``Confidentiality orders 
 723B.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an individual may make an application under this section to the Secretary of State where the condition in subsection (2) is satisfied. 
 (2) That condition is that the individual— 
 (a) is or proposes to become a director, secretary or permanent representative of a relevant company; and 
 (b) considers that the availability for inspection by members of the public of particulars of his usual residential address creates, or (if an order is not made under this section) is likely to create, a serious risk that he or a person who lives with him will be subjected to violence or intimidation. 
 (3) Where, on an application made by an individual under this section, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the availability for inspection by members of the public of particulars of the individual's usual residential address creates, or (if an order is not made under this section) is likely to create, a serious risk that the individual, or a person who lives with him, will be subjected to violence or intimidation, he shall make an order under this section (`a confidentiality order') in relation to him. 
 (4) Otherwise, he shall dismiss the application. 
 (5) An application under this section shall specify, in relation to each company of which the individual is a director, secretary or permanent representative, an address satisfying such conditions as may be prescribed. 
 (6) The Secretary of State shall give the applicant notice of his decision under subsection (3) or (4); and a notice under this subsection shall be given within the prescribed period after the making of the decision and contain such information as may be prescribed. 
 (7) Regulations may make provision about applications for confidentiality orders; and the regulations may in particular— 
 (a) require the payment, on the making of an application, of such fees as may be specified in the regulations; 
 (b) make provision about the form and manner in which applications are to be made; 
 (c) provide that applications shall contain such information, and be accompanied by such evidence, as the Secretary of State may from time to time direct. 
 (8) Regulations may make provision— 
 (a) about the manner in which determinations are to be made under subsection (3) or (4); 
 (b) for questions to be referred to such persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit for the purposes of such determinations; 
 (c) about the review of such determinations; 
 (d) about the period for which confidentiality orders shall remain in force and the renewal of confidentiality orders. 
 (9) The Secretary of State may at any time revoke a confidentiality order if he is satisfied that such conditions as may be prescribed are satisfied. 
 (10) Regulations may make provision about the manner in which a determination under subsection (9) is to be made and notified to the individual concerned. 
 Effect of confidentiality orders 
 723C.—(1) At any time when a confidentiality order is in force in relation to an individual— 
 (a) section 709(1) shall not apply to so much of any record kept by the registrar as contains information which is recorded as particulars of the individual's usual residential address that were contained in a document delivered to the registrar after the order came into force; 
 (b) section 364 shall have effect in relation to each affected company of which the individual is a director or secretary as if the reference in subsection (4)(a) of that section to the individual's usual residential address were a reference to the address for the time being specified by the individual in relation to that company under section 723B(5) or subsection (7) below. 
 (2) Regulations may make provision about the inspection and copying of confidential records, and such provision may include— 
 (a) provision as to the persons by whom, and the circumstances in which, confidential records may be inspected or copies taken of such records; 
 (b) provision under which the registrar may be required to provide certified copies of, or of extracts from, such records. 
 (3) Provision under subsection (2) may include provision— 
 (a) for persons of a prescribed description to be entitled to apply to the court for authority to inspect or take copies of confidential records; 
 (b) as to the criteria to be used by the court in determining whether an authorisation should be given. 
 (4) Regulations may make provision for restricting the persons to whom, and the purposes for which, relevant information may be disclosed. 
 (5) In subsection (4) `relevant information' means information, relating to the usual residential address of an individual in relation to whom a confidentiality order is in force, which has been obtained in prescribed circumstances. 
 (6) Regulations may— 
 (a) provide that, where a confidentiality order is in force in relation to an individual who is a director or secretary of a company, subsections (3) and (5) of section 288 shall not apply in relation to so much of the register kept by the company under that section as contains particulars of the usual residential address of that individual (`the protected part of the register'); and 
 (b) make provision as to the persons by whom the protected part of the register may be inspected and the conditions (which may include conditions as to the payment of a fee) on which they may inspect it. 
 (7) Regulations may make provision— 
 (a) requiring any individual in relation to whom a confidentiality order is in force to specify in the prescribed manner, in relation to each company of which he becomes a director, secretary or permanent representative at a time when the order is in force, an address satisfying such conditions as may be prescribed; 
 (b) as to the manner in which the address specified in relation to a company under section 723B(5) or this subsection may be changed. 
 (8) A company is an affected company for the purposes of subsection (1) if— 
 (a) it is required to deliver annual returns in accordance with section 363; and 
 (b) the individual has specified an address in relation to it under section 723B(5) or subsection (7) above. 
 Construction of sections 723B and 723C 
 723D.—(1) In section 723B `relevant company' means— 
 (a) a company formed and registered under this Act or an existing company; or 
 (b) an oversea company. 
 (2) For the purposes of sections 723B and 723C, an individual is a permanent representative of a company if— 
 (a) the company is a company to which section 690A applies; and 
 (b) he is authorised to represent the company as a permanent representative of the company for the business of one or more of its branches in Great Britain. 
 (3) In section 723C `confidential records' means so much of any records kept by the registrar for the purposes of the Companies Acts as contains information— 
 (a) which relates to an individual in relation to whom a confidentiality order is in force; and 
 (b) is recorded as particulars of the individual's usual residential address that were contained in a document delivered to the registrar after the order came into force. 
 (4) In sections 723B and 723C— 
 `confidentiality order' means an order under section 723B; 
 `the court' means such court as may be specified in regulations; 
 `director' and `secretary', in relation to an oversea company, have the same meanings as in Chapter I of Part XXIII of this Act; 
 `document' has the same meaning as in Part XXIV of this Act; 
 `prescribed' means prescribed by regulations. 
 (5) Section 715A(2) applies in relation to sections 723B and 723C as it applies in relation to Part XXIV of this Act. 
 (6) Regulations may provide that in determining for the purposes of sections 723B and 723C whether a document has been delivered after the coming into force of a confidentiality order, any document delivered to the registrar after the latest time permitted for the delivery of that document shall be deemed to have been delivered at that time. 
 (7) For the purposes of section 723B(2)(a) and subsection (2) above it is immaterial whether or not the company in question has already been incorporated or become a relevant company or a company to which section 690A applies at the time of the application under section 723B. 
 (8) For the purposes of section 723C(1) and subsection (3) above, it is immaterial whether the record in question consists in the original document concerned. 
 Sections 723B and 723C: offences 
 723E.—(1) Regulations may provide— 
 (a) that any person who in an application under section 723B makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular, shall be guilty of an offence; 
 (b) that any person who discloses information in contravention of regulations under section 723C(4) shall be guilty of an offence. 
 (2) Regulations may provide that a person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable— 
 (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both; and 
 (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both. 
 Regulations under sections 723B to 723E 
 723F.—(1) In sections 723B to 723E `regulations' means regulations made by the Secretary of State. 
 (2) Any power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under any of those sections shall be exercisable by statutory instrument. 
 (3) Regulations under sections 723B to 723E— 
 (a) may make different provision for different cases; 
 (b) may contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision, as the Secretary of State thinks fit. 
 (4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (3)(b) includes provision repealing or modifying any enactment. 
 (5) No regulations shall be made under any of sections 723B to 723E unless a draft of the instrument containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'' 
 (3) In section 288 (register of directors and secretaries), after subsection (6) there shall be inserted— 
 ``(7) Subsections (3) and (5) are subject to section 723B.'' 
 (4) In section 709(1) (inspection, etc of records kept by the registrar), at the beginning there shall be inserted ``Subject to section 723B,'''.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

New clause 1 - Exclusion of prisoners convicted of assaulting police officers, etc, from power to release short-term prisoners on licence

`In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(b) there is inserted— 
 ``(ba) the sentence is for any of the following offences— 
 (i) an offence under section 89 of the Police Act 1996 (assaulting, obstructing or resisting a constable); 
 (ii) an offence under section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (assault with intent to resist arrest); 
 (iii) an offence under section 18, section 20, or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding, causing grevous bodily harm and causing actual bodily harm) committed against a constable in the execution of his duty.''.'.—[Mr. Heald.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Oliver Heald: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (a) thereto, at end, add—
 `(iv) an offence of violence on any other member of the emergency services or staff of the National Health Service.'.
 New clause 2—Exclusion of prisoners convicted of offences against children from power to release short-term prisoners on licence— 
 `In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(c) there is inserted— 
 ``(ca)(i) the sentence is for an offence listed in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000; or 
 (ii) the sentence is for an offence listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 which is committed against a person under the age of 18; or 
 (iii) the sentence is for an offence which causes the prisoner to fall within paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.''.'.

Oliver Heald: The object of new clauses 1 and 2 is to exclude certain categories of offender from the discretionary early release scheme inserted into the Criminal Justice Act 1991 by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Those arrangements allow what has become known as the home detention curfew scheme, which is often described as the special early release scheme for those who have committed serious crimes. The scheme allows prisoners sentenced to up to four years in prison to be released up to two months earlier than the usual halfway point of their sentence. Someone sentenced to three years could be let out after 16 months and someone sentenced to six months could be out in six weeks. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), told the House on 12 June last year that someone released under the scheme would have an opportunity to be released before the halfway mark at which he would usually be released. That is not a secret. It is not a hidden proposal. That is the basis of the home detention curfew scheme. That is what it is designed to achieve. Someone who is sentenced to six months would become eligible for the scheme having served six weeks.
 Members of the Committee may not have had the chance to read the latest figures given in an answer last week by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). The official record shows that, from 28 January 1999—when the scheme began—to 31 January this year, 31,540 criminals were released early under the scheme. On average, they had received a sentence of 14.3 months, but served only 5.6 months in prison before being released—less than two-fifths of the sentence that they were given. 
 Those released on the scheme before serving even half their sentences included 64 criminals who had been convicted of manslaughter; seven who had been convicted of attempted murder; 4,152 who had been convicted of wounding, aggravated bodily harm and grevious bodily harm; 2,919 burglars; 1,348 robbers; 4,310 drug dealers and traffickers; 80 blackmailers; 50 kidnappers and 1,299 criminals who had been found guilty of affray and violent disorder. Such people are serious criminals and, given the almost 1,300 people who had been found guilty of affray and violent disorder, one is entitled to say that the Government's approach to the yob culture is something of a gimmick if they allow so many who have committed serious offences of disorder to laugh in the face of the court that gave them sentences more than double those that they actually served. 
 Since then, 1,000 further offences have been committed, including two rapes. Dozens of serious crimes of violence have been committed by prisoners who had been released under the scheme during the two-month period that they spent on the scheme. A total of 1,000 offences would not have been committed, except for the Government's policy. The Opposition have consistently opposed the scheme from day 1. When the Home Office announced it on 20 November 1997, the shadow Home Secretary, then my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said: 
 ``Today, we have seen a significant shift in this country's penal policy—from the victim to the criminal''.—[Official Report, 20 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 456.] 
During the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) condemned the policy, saying: 
``what the Government are doing is wrong.''—[Official Report, 23 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 928.] 
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, the present shadow Home Secretary, has made clear the Conservative party's complete opposition to the Government's special early release scheme. Indeed, the Select Committee, which reported on the matter, was actively mislead when it was told that it would apply only to less serious offences. In fact, it was introduced, and is being used, to deal with offences that are more serious. It is a matter of concern that the Government have flown in the face of the views of the Select Committee and the official Opposition by insisting on going ahead with this scheme. 
 In the past two years, we have tried to correct the worst defects. Conservative proposals to exclude registered sex offenders from the scheme, which we initiated almost three years ago, became law last year through the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. I shall not embarrass the Minister by recounting the catalogue of errors that led to the release under the scheme of a number of child sex offenders before the exclusion became law. His hon. Friends have admitted to them and they are a matter of public record. However, the Government have consistently rejected the proposal in new clause 1, which, under the special early release arrangements, would prevent the release of criminals who assault police officers and resist arrest. 
 According to figures given by the other Minister, the right hon. Member for Brent, South, 15 criminals convicted of obstructing a constable, 13 criminals convicted of assault with intent to resist arrest and 246 criminals convicted of assaulting a police officer have so far been released early under the scheme. Indeed, a further 25 assaults on police were committed by those who should have been in prison but were released early. On average, the 246 criminals convicted of assaulting a police officer received a prison sentence of almost five months, of which they served six weeks—less than a third of the sentence handed down. That makes a mockery of the words of the hon. Member for Norwich, South, who told the House last month: 
 ``Assault is a serious offence and assaults on the police are deplorable...We recognise our responsibility in supporting the police to protect the community...We expect the courts to use their full powers when considering sentences in cases where the police are assaulted.''—[Official Report, 15 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 255W.] 
Those are fine words, but the fact of the matter is that when the courts do their duty and impose prison sentences of, on average, five months, the Home Secretary lets such people out after six weeks under the discretion granted to him by the scheme. This is a gimmick of the Government. They say, ``Let's be tough: let the courts pass the proper sentence,'' but they let out offenders after six weeks. That approach is a nonsense and the Government must change it. 
 The Minister stresses his support for the police. He goes to a good deal of trouble to meet them and says that he will act tough. He must know that it is bad for police morale to release those who have been convicted of assaulting a police officer after they have served no more than a third of their sentence. That approach shows contempt for law and order in our country and it must be changed. No wonder the Minister finds it so difficult to recruit police. This is one of a number of factors that are damaging police morale. It makes a mockery of the police to deal with them in this way. It is a kick in the teeth for men and women who have a difficult job. 
 The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey used to share the Minister's view of our proposal, and twice voted against it. However, having had time to reflect, he has changed his mind, and I give him credit for that straightforward and honourable decision. The Minister must do the same. It is unacceptable for him, as the Minister responsible for the police, to allow this to happen. For the fourth time, I urge him to give our proposal some thought. He should consider the effect that it would have on the police if he were prepared to bend on this issue and to recognise the obvious sense of what we are saying at a time when it is hard to recruit police—especially in the cities, where they are more likely to be assaulted. We are pressing the Minister hard on this matter. 
 The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has tabled an amendment to the new clause that would provide the same protection to other emergency services and health workers. He has a good point, and we support him. Assault on people in the front line, such as police officers, is a particularly serious matter and is treated as a distinct sort of assault. Separate categories of offence cover the thin blue line that protects us all and the people in the emergency services, who are often assaulted by those whom they are trying to help. I hope that the Minister, having accepted our case on child sex offenders, will become another late convert to our views and say, ``Yes, you have found another category that it is right to exclude from the scheme.'' 
 New clause 2 would exclude from the provisions of the scheme those who commit offences against children, which is a separate category under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. It includes cruelty to children, serious assaults on children and dealing drugs to children. Children need such protection. When people go out and commit foul offences of cruelty against them, we, as a society, should be able to say, ``We are going to protect our children from this. When a judge passes a sentence, we won't cut it in half and knock off a further period: we'll let him pass his sentence and allow the normal position to prevail.'' I shall not go into our views about honesty in sentencing but, even under the present system, what the judge says should happen. Why should we do favours to people who assault police officers or emergency workers, or attack or deal drugs to children? They do not deserve the hand up that the Government are trying to give them. 
 There is a conflict between the Minister's rhetoric and what he does. He said recently: 
 ``The Government believe those who offend against children should be dealt with severely by the courts''.—[Official Report, 15 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 254W.] 
Yet, when the courts hand out a tough sentence to an offender, he is let out when he has served a third of his sentence. That is nonsensical.

Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the huge difference between the Government's rhetoric and the reality is the rapacious demands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It is expensive to keep people in custody for the full period of the sentence. Perhaps the Home Secretary and the Minister are under orders from the Chancellor to build up an ever bigger cash pile for the handouts that we will no doubt hear about tomorrow.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend is right, but no doubt there is a bit more to it than that. The Government believe that, if someone comes up with a cardboard cut-out scheme, which has some sort of flimsy 24-hour popularity and which generates a headline in a newspaper, he has done his job. There is nothing long term about it and it does not work. One need only look at the child curfew scheme, which was supposed to deliver untold benefits. The Prime Minister lauded it to the skies, but what happened? Not one curfew order has been issued. There were supposed to be 5,000 anti-social behaviour orders every year, but only 150 have actually been made.
 I shall not go on for too long, Mr. Hood, but when one examines these proposals, one sees that they are all cardboard cut-outs, and that they are full of problems and will not work. All the experts, such as police organisations, are tearing their hair out over the extra bureaucracy and gimmicks, when all they want is to get down to some basic, honest policing, which means having more police officers doing the job properly. All these gimmicks of extra criminal justice measures are all very well and good. Obviously, we support some of them in principle, but if the police officers are not out there, and if the courts are not supported when they pass sentences, we shall undermine everything that we want to achieve in our criminal justice system. 
 It is annoying to hear a Minister saying, ``Oh, those who offend against children should be dealt with severely by the courts.'' That is blaming the courts, as though they are not doing their job. When the courts hand out a sentence, the Home Secretary, under a discretionary power, reduces it so that only one third of it is served. What way is that to deal with criminals? Every time that happens, a message is sent out that what is said is not meant.

Jackie Ballard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is implicit from what he has just said that the only form of sentence that he considers to be such is imprisonment?

Oliver Heald: No. I never said that. I like measures that work.

Charles Clarke: Common-sense measures.

Oliver Heald: That is a good way of putting it. It is good that the Minister is using that expression. It shows that we are getting through even to him.
 The hon. Member for Taunton is wrong to say that I think that imprisonment is the only thing that works. It can work and it is important to be able to send people to prison, because some of them will not reform. I am perfectly happy to concede that there are good community penalties which work. I have never been someone who says that only prison works. However, it is laughable and makes a farce of the court if someone is given a prison sentence and is told that he will serve five months for assaulting a police officer, which is a serious matter, and is then let out after a third of that time. It undermines everything that we are trying to do. I have represented hundreds of thousands of criminals over the years. They look to see what the sentence is, and they almost have a degree in what it means.

Stephen Ladyman: If prison works, why does Britain have the highest number of people in prison in the developed world?

Oliver Heald: The problem is that we have a lot of crime . The hon. Gentleman might agree that one of the best deterrents is to have sufficient police officers to catch criminals. It is the fear of being caught that deters people.
 Interestingly, there was an experiment recently on anti-robbery initiatives in Hillingdon, which found that the more police there were working on initiatives, targeting people, and so on, the fewer robberies were committed.

Nick Hawkins: Is not part of the answer to the hon. Member for South Thanet that prison undoubtedly works for the duration of the sentence because the criminal is out of circulation? Therefore, the law-abiding are protected from him while he is serving a sentence. Is not my hon. Friend right to say that, if the criminals are to be deterred by the risk of being caught, it is important that they serve the sentence that is handed down by the courts?

Oliver Heald: I agree with that.
 I remember, a few years ago, debating secure training centres and being told by the police and some communities that young offenders were likely to have real problems. I am the first to concede that many come from a damaged and fractured background. Most of us are genuinely sad about that and believe that a lot of attention should be given to them and to their problems. I am all for community penalties, but one person who continues to offend, time after time, can do a huge amount of damage. The Prime Minister has only recently realised that approximately 100,000 people commit most of the crimes in Britain, but it takes only one or two to start a crime wave. That is a huge problem and such offenders must be locked up because the public must be protected. A balance must be struck between trying to rehabilitate the individual and solving the problem for the public, and uncomfortable decisions must be taken on the margins. 
 If someone who is given six months serves only six weeks, the wrong message is sent to the offender, who does not need a degree to know that the courts do not mean it when they say five or six months. The wrong message is also sent to the public, who know that the courts are not being honest when they say six months because they mean six weeks. The result is the farcical situation in which a Minister says that the courts should deal severely with those who offend against children, but when the courts do so, offenders are let out early. That is daft. 
 I shall not continue further because the new clauses have merit.

Simon Hughes: I want to speak to amendment (a) to new clause 1, but I shall be brief, because, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said, I have made my views clear.
 I accept that the system introduced by the Government is a form of detention—it is home detention rather than detention in prison. The Minister knows that my party is generally keen to consider alternatives to custody whenever possible. For example, we have supported a trial of tagging. In principle, we have no problem with being imaginative about ensuring that people remain in the community if an adequate risk assessment suggests that they are not a significant risk and if a community sentence can be revoked. However, two other issues concerning sentencing policy must be discussed. 
 First, we are trying, when it is sensible to do so, to reduce the number of people in the prison system, but that has not brought about a considerable decrease in crime. The hon. Member for South Thanet rightly inquired about that. Evidence around the world and in western democracies shows the same thing--there is no direct correlation between the number of people inside and the crime figures, and no evidence that doubling or tripling the population of those who are locked up suddenly produces a reduction in crime. Indeed, without a good prison regime, it is likely to do the opposite. We are keen to have a debate on alternatives to custody that work, but we accept that risk assessment is difficult. Since taking on the job of Liberal Democrat spokesman on home and legal affairs, I have come to the view that we need a system that does not determine when people should be let out until an assessment has been made later in the sentence. We are talking not about the most serious offences, but of another category of offences. 
 A good argument can be made now, for good public policy reasons, to exclude certain offences from the home detention regime. I want to persuade the Minister, as he sought to persuade us to change our view on other amendments, of the merit of such a move; it would be helpful, especially in the present circumstances. Such flexibility would be useful if evidence of the Government's success in reducing offending rates and public pressure demanded it. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, who made an entirely reasonable case, might believe that it should be done in all circumstances, but I interpret him to mean that it should be result of a combination of the number of offences committed by people on home detention and the effect that it has on the morale and confidence of the police service. Those are proper and valid considerations. Had nothing been said to me about the effect on the police service, I might not have been persuaded to change my position, but that tilted the balance. We now support new clause 1, and we tabled amendment (a) because key public workers believe that they, too, should be protected. 
 I briefly acknowledge that there is a difference. The hon. Gentleman said, quite properly, that new clause 1 deals with specific offences against police constables. The Minister could reasonably say that it is a ring-fenced area; but even if he does not buy amendment (a), it would be right to accept the new clause, because the offences would be committed against people whose job is to enforce the law. They deserve the protection of the public while they are doing that job, and they should know that offences against them carry a particular consequence. 
 Amendment (a) recognises that some key workers among those who work in the public services are having a particularly hard time. That is not only an opposition view; I remember that, when the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was Secretary of State for Health, he regularly mentioned the assaults made on workers in the health service. I know from personal experience and from second-hand information—it is not disputed across the Committee—that ambulance drivers and crews are regularly assaulted in the course of their work. Before Christmas, I spent some time with an ambulance crew. They did a brilliant job and saved a little lad's life. Ambulance staff deserve our respect and our support. That is why the new clause is so important. 
 We want the new clause to apply to the other emergency services and to those in the front line of the caring professions. For instance, nurses and doctors cannot turn people away from accident and emergency departments; they have no choice but to serve the public. I appreciate that many others do public sector jobs; indeed, Ministers may argue that one could make a long list of them, including Benefits Agency staff. Those mentioned in amendment (a) work in the emergency and immediate care services, and that differentiates them from other public sector workers. That leads me to new clause 2. 
 I understand the argument of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that new clause 2 relates to certain specific offences. He is entitled to put that argument. I also understand that the public have a strong view on the matter. I shall be as honest about that as I have been on other matters. We are considering our position. We have not closed our minds to the argument. It is difficult to keep chopping away at the proposal that people should be detained at home. However, we shall not vote against it, and we may reserve our position this evening. I would be interested to hear the Minister's response. The debate calls for a change in the Government's position. 
 In moderate terms, I hope that I have joined the hon. Gentleman in putting the case. Even if the Minister says that the Government will listen to what we have said in a positive light rather than merely rebutting it, he will be doing the public a service. The change would be worth making not only for the people affected, but for him and his colleagues.

Crispin Blunt: I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to illustrate what divides the new clauses and his amendment. He disputed whether there was a link between crime figures and the prison population. I want to draw his attention to the change in the trend in crime that occurred under the most recent Conservative Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
 As Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend sent out a consistent and robust message about crime. It made him deeply unpopular with the liberal establishment but, so far as I could ascertain as a special adviser in another Department, he managed to change the character of the Home Office. He achieved something that eluded Interior and Justice Ministers all over the western and developed world: he reversed the ever-growing trend in crime. A significant part of that achievement was down to the policy that he pursued as Home Secretary, the prison policy and the robust message sent to criminals.

Simon Hughes: I understand how the hon. Gentleman can make that argument, but the link between Government crime policy and its consequence on crime figures is speculative rather than a matter of fact. The time lag between policy and figures in this country is much less certain than in others. He needs more than a belief and a statistical link to prove that the two were as linked as he suggests.

Crispin Blunt: Of course, in the end it would be impossible to make the link scientifically, as one would have to get into the mind of every criminal to ask why offences happened and so on. On the face of the evidence available, I believe that it is reasonable to propose that a Government sending the relentless message that they were tough on crime and actually acting that way—they were prepared to lock people up and see and fund a rise in the prison population—had an effect on criminal behaviour.

Stephen Ladyman: I entirely disagree that that is an appropriate link to make. Senior policemen have told me that the fall in crime over recent years has largely been down to the introduction of intelligence-led policing. That is especially true in Kent, where we have had a 23 per cent. reduction in crime since the general election.

Crispin Blunt: I am sure that the police would want to claim the credit in that way. My point is that there have been many contributions to the trend, some negative, as other factors will have caused crime to rise over the period. Rather than getting into a dispute about exactly what members of the Committee and others may or may not believe, I want to emphasise the importance of the signal that was sent. That is why I want the Minister to consider carefully the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. It is an opportunity to send a small signal to say that this Parliament understands the importance of the police in going about their duty and will support them.
 Equally, I support the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey in saying that the provision should apply to other members of the emergency services and staff of the national health service as well. We are here this evening to make such points, and I hope that the Minister will consider them. The new clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, would send a signal out to the police and the other emergency services. I hope that, on this small issue, the Minister will be able to entertain the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire described the Government as a gimmick Government. This is a gimmick new clause. We are trying to scrutinise the Bill, and although it is perfectly in order to produce new clauses of this type, he is merely seeking to open a line of discussion that is part of the general rhetoric of the Conservative Opposition. He is entitled to do so, so I make no criticism from that point of view. It is okay, but it weakens his case, in terms of the amount of time that such proposals leave for the consideration of the Bill itself.

Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke: No, I will not. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before the end of what I have to say.
Mr. Heald rose—

Jimmy Hood: Order. Has the Minister given way?

Charles Clarke: I will give way to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

Oliver Heald: If the Minister is thinking of giving me some extra time, I would be delighted.

Charles Clarke: There are three general points. First, the hon. Gentleman called for more police. He will be glad to hear that the number of police is increasing. Nearly half the police forces in the country have more police than they did in March 1997, and that will continue to advance. Secondly, he made a series of important points on sentencing, which are, as he knows, being considered in our sentencing review, and will be given due weight in that context. Some of the points related to the inquiry of Lord Justice Auld, but most of them related to sentencing review issues. There are important issues around sentencing, which is why we established the sentencing review. That is the right way to deal with the matter.
 The hon. Member for Surrey Heath raised the question of the Chancellor. None of this is driven by the Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman should examine the restraints placed by the shadow Chancellor on the commitments that he can make, before being saying too much on the matter. 
 The home detention curfew system was not set up in the way that the amendments suggest. The home detention curfew scheme received the unanimous support of the all-party Select Committee on Home Affairs, which included the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins), for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Surrey Heath—a fine home counties trio, if ever there was one.

Oliver Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke: No. As I said, I will give way towards the end of what I have to say, not to anybody with a point to make.
 Those three hon. Members were part of the Home Affairs Committee, which stated that the home detention curfew scheme would 
``provide adequate protection to the public because of the tagging element, and will give prisoners an opportunity to readjust to life outside prison.''

Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a point of order. You will recall that, at an earlier stage, in another debate, the Minister accused me of seeking to mislead the Committee. In a similar vein, can I ask you if it is in order for the Minister to refer to my involvement in a report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which he knows full well never considered the proposal that curfews be used for drug dealers, those who have assaulted police or people accused of offences against children. The whole basis of the deliberations of the Select Committee on the measure was that it would be used in respect of minor offences only.

Jimmy Hood: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that that is not a point for the Chair.

Charles Clarke: I merely sought to show that there was a lot of debate before the introduction of the home detention curfews. As I said, a range of hon. Members representing home counties constituencies went along with that approach.
 The fundamental point about the home detention curfew is that the list of groups of prisoners who are currently disbarred falls into four categories, defined according to two central criteria: first, the extent of the risk to the public; secondly, that of the risk of the prisoner breaching the curfew. The first of the four groups consists of those who have previously breached trust—for example, those who have failed to return. The second consists of those who are required to register with the police on release as a sex offender—which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. The third group consists of those whom the court considers to pose a serious risk of reoffending with a violent offence, and have therefore have been sentenced to imprisonment with extended supervision. The fourth group is that of those whose offending was brought about by mental illness, such that the court has made a hospital or similar order on the basis of risk to the public. 
 That is the basis of the disbarring of prisoners from the scheme. The sentencing approach is not based on which types of crimes are particularly worthy of having access to the scheme. Only 30 per cent. of those who are eligible for home detention curfews pass the risk assessment, which shows the seriousness of that assessment. It is not a matter of reproof or reprobation of particular types of offence. 
 The two issues that I mentioned—the risk to the public and the risk that the prisoner will breach the curfew—are fundamental. The issues covered by new clauses 1 and amendment (a) to that new clause simply do not arise in the context of the home detention curfew. They arise in the context of an overall consideration of sentencing, of the type that the hon. Gentleman spoke about. If he wishes, I can give him a commitment. That is now one of the matters being considered in the context of the sentencing review. 
 The hon. Gentleman makes a separate point in new clause 2 about the issue of the risk to the public. I take that point more seriously, because it relates to the fundamental purposes of the home detention curfew. The home detention curfew legislation excludes those who are required to register as sex offenders because the risk of their reoffending, perhaps during the HDC period, has been judged serious so an individual risk assessment is not needed. The heinous nature of the offence is not the issue. As before, that is a matter for the court, taking into account sentencing and review. 
 Schedule 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, to which new clause 2 refers, consists of a list of offences that, if committed, disqualify the offender from working with children. The list was never intended to apply to anything else, and in our view it is not an appropriate guide to who is, or is not, at risk of reoffending while under a home detention curfew. 
 I do not consider the proposals appropriate, but before I conclude I shall give way briefly to anyone who wants to contribute.

Oliver Heald: As far as new clause 2 is concerned, the list consists of those who are a danger to children. Why does the Minister want to release early those who are a danger to children?

Charles Clarke: Neither I nor the Government want to let people out early. The key question in this process is whether the individual concerned constitutes a risk in the way that we have described.

Simon Hughes: I want to make two points. First, given the Minister's description of the current criteria for home detention curfews, I assume that there could be other criteria for exclusion, and that in principle there is no objection on public policy grounds to excluding specific types of offence. I presume that the Minister will accept that the offences in question fall into such categories. Secondly, is the Minister saying that the sentencing review is empowered to consider not only length of sentence and the home detention curfew system, but whether the system could be extended in relation to category of offence and assessment of the risk of reoffending?

Charles Clarke: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the sentencing review is not focused principally on home detention curfews. They do not form part of the overall approach but measures such as tagging on release very much do. I mentioned the sentencing review because many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire relate to the way in which sentences work for various categories of offenders. The category of offenders that was alluded to at the start of this short debate is being dealt with through the sentencing review process, and I can confirm that the home detention curfew does not form a central part of that approach. We accept that, in principle, one can look at criteria for home detention curfew other than those that currently apply.
 I described the new clauses as gimmick amendments because under the umbrella of a criminal justice Bill it is possible to raise any number of concerns. I understand the reason for the Opposition's general refrain about setting people free early. They seek to make their political points in that way and they are entitled to do so. However, they are not entitled to argue that insufficient time is being allowed to debate the Bill in Committee, given that we are considering the new clauses that they have tabled. 
 In the light of those comments, I ask the Opposition to withdraw the new clause, but I doubt whether they will succumb to my blandishments.

Simon Hughes: I understand the Minister's answer but, for reasons that we all understand, only part of this Bill might be secured before the election. It would be remiss of us not to take the opportunity afforded by an umbrella Bill such as this to deal with a part of the criminal justice system that is seen not to work for victims and public servants. As the Minister anticipated, and even though the sentencing review process will be considered at some stage, when the time comes we will move our amendment and I hope that hon. Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches will support it. In turn, we will support new clause 1 if it is pressed to a vote.

Oliver Heald: We would indeed like to press new clauses 1 and 2 to a vote. Given that the Government are able to produce a 10-year crime plan while we are waiting for the old report, we need not wait for the sentencing review before making such a small change.
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 2Exclusion of prisoners convicted of offences against children from power to release short-term prisoners on licence

New Clause 2 - Exclusion of prisoners convicted of offences against children from power to release short-term prisoners on licence

`In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(c) there is inserted— 
 ``(ca)(i) the sentence is for an offence listed in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the 
 Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000; or 
 (ii) the sentence is for an offence listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 which is committed against a person under the age of 18; or 
 (iii) the sentence is for an offence which causes the prisoner to fall within paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.''.'.—[Mr. Heald.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

New Clause 5 - Application to magistrates' court

`—If a person to whom a penalty notice is alleged to have been given in accordance with sections 2 and 3, but who for whatever reason has failed to ask for this alleged offence to be tried in accordance with section 4 nonetheless thereafter shall make application to the relevant magistrates' court in writing for the penalty notice to be set aside the court shall consider the application and if in all the circumstances it is right in the interests of justice to do so shall either set the notice aside or shall order the matter to be tried.'.—[Sir Nicholas Lyell.]
 Sir Nicholas Lyell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time. 
 The Minister is inclined to think that this matter is of no importance. However, I remain concerned that people will be given a penalty notice, but, for whatever reason, will not appreciate it. They may not realise exactly what they should do, even though it would have been adequately explained to them had they read the document that was given to them. I was concerned that there should be an opportunity for such matters to be tried if a court felt it just to do so, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and I tabled new clause 5. 
 We are taking a considerable step in enabling the police to give these penalty notices in a wide variety of cases. In many cases, it is a sensible step, but if there is a genuine desire to contest the matter it is important that that desire should not be frustrated by the complicated system that surrounds penalty notices. I have dealt with the issue before in the context of penalty notices for motor vehicles and parking, which we know can lead to confusion. This is a simple clause, which enables somebody to whom a penalty notice has been given none the less to seek to bring the matter before a court. 
 I am aware that a stop point is provided in clause 12(5), which means that an enforcement court may order a matter to be tried. However, that process would come unnecessarily late. A citizen who has been given a penalty notice may fail to understand or exercise the methods at his disposal. He may be the victim of some mistake that is difficult to prove. For example, he may not have been handed the notice in its correct form, although it is down in the administrative records that he has received one. The new clause would allow for a fallback provision in those cases. Such a person would be able to ask the court in writing to reopen the matter and order it to be tried. 
 I have asked myself whether such a provision might be abused by being used too frequently, which would make nonsense of the sensible intention behind penalty notices to short-cut court proceedings. However, I do not believe that it would be abused; it would be used comparatively rarely, but it would enable justice to be done and would give people greater confidence in a system that might otherwise be in danger of falling into disrepute. 
 The system for parking offences might have fallen into disrepute if it were not for the mechanism by which one may write to the parking office. Some lady or gentleman in an administrative position in that office is entitled to reduce or abrogate the fine. That system is not built into the Bill, but the amendment would enable the matter to be brought back before the court.

Simon Hughes: We are sympathetic to the amendment.

Charles Clarke: If an error comes to light before a fine is registered, the chief officer of police has the power to take no further action. I can reassure hon. Members that the Bill caters for the situations that they have in mind. A person named as the recipient of a penalty notice may have a number of reasons for not asking for a trial. First, he may have paid the penalty. Second, he may believe that he has an explanation for his behaviour not evident to the constable issuing the notice, which may provide an excuse. Thirdly, if he has failed to respond to the notice, a fine will probably be registered against him.
 Arrangements are provided in the Bill for such circumstances. For example, a person may acknowledge receipt of the notice but still want to be tried. Under clause 12, the court will have the residual power in the interests of justice to set aside any fine arising from a penalty notice. If the defaulter claims that he was not the recipient of the notice and that his name appeared in error, the court may adjourn the case for an investigation to be made. 
 The Bill contains substantial safeguards; they are well established, and we debated them under clause 12. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

Nicholas Lyell: I have listened carefully to the Minister. I suspect that the matter will arise again in the other place. I ask the Minister to continue to reflect on it, so that we may have a fair and workable system. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13 - Use of electronic communication to engage in, incite, entice, or solicit an act of gross indecency with a child: amendment of the indecency with children act 1960

`After section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (Indecent conduct towards young child), there shall be inserted—
 ``Use of electronic communication to engage in, incite, entice, or solicit an act of gross indecency with a child
 1A.(1) Any person aged eighteen or over who uses an electronic communication for the purpose of—
(a) engaging in an act of gross indecency with a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child; or
(b) inciting or enticing a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child to meet with him, with the intent of engaging in an act of gross indecency; or
(c) soliciting a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child to engage in any act that would constitute an offence under section 1 or under section (1)(a) or (1)(b).
is guilty of an offence and shall be liable
(i) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both; or
(ii) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
 (2) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to the offences mentioned in the first Schedule to that Act shall include offences under this section.
 (3) Offences under this section shall be deemed to be offences against the person for the purpose of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (which restricts the trial by the United Kingdom courts of offenders connected with visiting forces);
 (4) In this section—
``child'' means a person under the age of sixteen years
``electronic communication'' has the meaning given by section 15 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000.''.'.—[Mr. Heald.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Oliver Heald: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Jimmy Hood: With this will be convenient to take the following: New clause 18— Use of electronic communications to entice an act of gross indecency with a child—
 `—(1) Any person aged eighteen or over who intentionally uses an electronic communication for the purpose of enticing a child, or other person who is believed by such person to be a child, to meet him in order to be able to engage in an act of gross indecency, is guilty of an offence and shall be liable—
(i) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to a fine, or to both; or
(ii) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.'.

Oliver Heald: The new clause deals with the issue of internet chat rooms and the luring of children by paedophiles. It mirrors similar amendments tabled last year to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill and rejected by the Government, who have rejected such measures four times. The most recent occurrence was in the other place on 8 November, when the proposals were defeated fairly narrowly. The noble Lord Bassam, the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General and the Leader of the Lords voted against them, as did the Liberal Democrats. That is surprising, given that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has tabled new clause 18, which relates to that issue.
 The new clause is primarily designed to combat paedophiles who lure or entice young children into meeting them for sex using internet chatrooms. There have recently been two well-documented cases. The first related to a girl known as Georgie, who at the age of 13 began to use internet chatrooms and became infatuated with an on-line friend who said that he was an older teenager. They made an arrangement to meet, and luckily her mother went along, because in fact, far from being a teenager, he turned out to be a rather unpleasant middle-aged man.

Siobhain McDonagh: No change there, then.

Jimmy Hood: Order.

Oliver Heald: The girl was lucky, but unfortunately it was not possible for the charges of conspiracy to commit an act of gross indecency to be pursued because an offence such as the new clause is aimed at was not committed.
 The second case involved a convicted paedophile, Patrick Green, who was sentenced to five years at Aylesbury Crown court last year for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl whom he had lured into meeting him using an internet chatroom. Before his conviction he was released on bail and began to communicate with another teenage girl using a chatroom. He arranged to meet the girl and was caught red-handed by the police while travelling to meet her, but because no assault had taken place, it was not possible to charge him with luring her. 
 The Government have repeatedly rejected our calls for a change in the law, claiming that there is no loophole. Lord Williams of Mostyn said in the other place that 
``the present law . . . already applies online as it does offline.'' —[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 887.] 
The Home Secretary said in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald last year that the law did not need amendment. He said: 
 ``We believe that, with respect to the particular concerns ... raised, the law already makes this particular misuse of the internet illegal.'' 
However, during Prime Minister's questions last week, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) raised the issue, and the Prime Minister said: 
 ``The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I am informed by the Home Secretary that earlier today he had a meeting on that very subject. We are actively considering doing what the hon. Gentleman has just suggested. Perhaps when our deliberations have finished I can contact him and tell him the result''. —[Official Report, 28 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 904.] 
Given that the matter is actively under consideration, I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments. Why has it taken almost a year of pressure from the Opposition to get even active consideration of the matter? 
 The Government must come to terms with some of the problems that the internet creates. Last year's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill was an attempt to tackle some of the problems. However, we are dealing with children. The Government should focus on the problem, as there is no doubt that children are at risk. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

Jackie Ballard: The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire obviously received the same briefing from Childnet International as I and, I suspect, other members of the Committee did, which refers to a couple of cases. Childnet has made a submission to the Home Office. It believes that the current law does not adequately protect children from on-line ``grooming''. Paedophiles have another place in which to start the bonding process with a child and gain children's confidence and, perhaps, after several months suggest that they meet off-line, or in real life.
 The main difference between our new clause 18 and the Conservative new clause 13 is that the Conservative new clause would make it necessary to prove both enticement and intent to engage in an act of gross indecency, whereas ours does not set such a high hurdle. Childnet International and many others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, do not believe that the current law allows for people to be arrested before the off-line or real-life offence takes place. Clearly, if we are serious about protecting children, we do not want to reach the point at which an off-line offence takes place. 
 New clause 18 is not perfect, and we would not expect the Minister to accept it here and now. However, in the light of various attempts to enable legislation to catch up with what is happening in real life—and given the Prime Minister's response to my hon. Friend last week—I hope that the Minister will tell us that positive steps are being taken to address the problem.

Charles Clarke: As both hon. Members said, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear our concern about the matter in his answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, to which I shall add. I had a meeting two or three weeks ago with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, who are the parents of one of the individuals concerned. It was a moving discussion of the issues at stake. I have had meetings with children's charities, which played an active role in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and with which we are seeking to work closely on such matters.
 I do not make the point sharply, but I take slightly amiss the suggestion that the Government have been remiss in this area. When I was an Education Minister, before I came to the Home Office, we were exceptionally exercised by the matter as we were spreading the internet to schools. We established a tight group to decide how to put controls in the system to ensure that schoolchildren's e-mails could not be used for such an approach. A wide range of different initiatives were taken. Since I have been at the Home Office, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, to which the hon. Gentleman generously referred, has been introduced, as well as the legislation piloted through the House by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South, which included several changes in the law in this area. In addition to those positive steps, we announced six months ago substantial extra investment in the National Criminal Intelligence Service precisely to deal with such issues. 
 I acknowledge that we have not yet squared the circle in this area, but I am not prepared to accept the charge that we have been delinquent in any way. A great deal remains to be done, and the Prime Minister was speaking honestly to the House when he said that we are actively engaged with internet service providers and others in tackling the issue. 
 On the amendments, it is already an offence under the Indecency with Children Act 1960 to incite a child to engage in such an act. The relevant law therefore establishes a legal basis. There is a real need for fundamental, comprehensive and coherent reform of the law in this area in two respects. First, it is necessary in relation to the whole question of sex offences, which is why we published a comprehensive analysis of sex offences in the sex offences review last July, to which we are currently seeking responses. The principal two purposes of that approach were to establish and strengthen protection for children and to modernise the law in a wide variety of other ways. Such complex issues will raise profound moral questions when they are debated in the House. Secondly, comprehensive reform is necessary to deal with internet chatrooms and the use of the internet in a way that is internally consistent.

Oliver Heald: I fully accept what the Minister said about consultation on the whole range of sexual offences. However, sometimes there is a need to plug a gap in the law and to do so speedily. That was done by the Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000, even though a larger review of licensing and a new licensing law is likely to be introduced whichever party wins the general election. Would the Minister not agree that a specific problem needs to be solved in this area, and that it needs to be solved now?

Charles Clarke: I accept that we must make the best of the enemy of the good. We honour that principle in various things that we do. However, my third point is that the amendments are restricted to on-line behaviour. It is extremely important to establish consistency across various areas of the law as we make changes. Further protection is also available under section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984, which makes it an offence for someone other than a parent or certain others to take or detain a child under 16. The key areas are active policing and good work with industry, which we are addressing.
 I conclude my comments by acknowledging the seriousness of the matter. We are giving it serious consideration: first, by making the necessary changes to the law; secondly, by strengthening policing and working with industry, to which I assure the hon. Member for Taunton that we are absolutely committed; and thirdly, by ensuring that new legislation on such matters is consistent across the range of areas in which we operate. We work closely with children's charities—which already work well as a team—and we shall continue to do so.

Oliver Heald: I should have paid tribute to Childnet International, which has done a fantastic campaigning job in recent years. Its websites set out many of the horrendous problems that exist.
 Sometimes it is right to wait for a general review of the law and to cover everything at once; on other occasions a problem arises as a result of a loophole in the law and needs to be tackled immediately. Having pressed the matter for more than a year, we want to press it again. 
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 14Fear of violence

New Clause 14 - Fear of violence

`.—Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 shall be amended in subsection(1) by leaving out the words ``on at least two occasions''.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

New Clause 15 - Conspiracy

`.—After section 4 of the Protection for Harassment Act 1997 there shall be inserted the following section—
``Conspiracy
 4A. Where two or more persons agree to organise or plan the commission by any other persons or by themselves a course of conduct contrary to Section 1 and Section 4 of this Act, they shall be guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977 Section 1.''.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 16Summary offence of urination or defecation in a public place

New Clause 16 - Summary offence of urination or defecation in a public place

`(1) A person who urinates or defecates in any public place otherwise than by using a lavatory commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
 (2) An offence under this section is a penalty offence for the purposes of Chapter I of Part I of this Act.
 (3) In this section, ``public place'' means any place in the open to which the public or any section of the public has access as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 Sadly, we have so little time because of the Government's ridiculous guillotine that we shall be unable to finish the debate. However, I can briefly move what we regard as an important matter. It is not only Opposition Members who regard new clause 16 as important. The original impetus behind the clause came from Westminster city council. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who has played a significant role in the Committee. I pay tribute to him because he has gone well beyond the traditional role of the usual channels and not only supported his constituents on matters such as a field sports, but been involved in talking to councillor Kit Malthouse, who is Westminster city council's lead member. 
 I have a letter from Mr. Graham Ellis, who is Westminster city council's director of policy and communications. The council, which, along with many other urban, suburban and perhaps even rural local authorities, feels strongly on this issue, states: 
 ``We feel the police should be able to serve fixed penalty notices for urination and defecation in the street. This is not currently an offence unless a byelaw is in place. However enforcing byelaws involves the arrest and the lengthy processing of any offenders.'' 
The council points out that it has introduced several measures that will come into force this summer to seek to tackle the problem. They include longer opening hours for public conveniences and the use of mobile urinals. However, the problem is now widespread—according to Mr. Ellis and his colleague Mr. Grant—in the city of Westminster, which is the local authority for the centre of this capital city of which we are rightly proud. 
 The letter states that 
``the problem is so widespread that these measures that the council itself is taking alone are unlikely to make significant inroads without the power to back them up with a pro-active enforcement campaign.'' 
It continues: 
 ``We have the support from the police for a change in the law. Like us, the police believe that an on-the-spot penalty is the most effective way of dealing with offenders. It seems anomalous that the illegal depositing of litter should be an offence attracting a fixed penalty when the even more antisocial act of human beings fouling the highway is not. Still stranger is the position of the dog owner who is legally responsible for his pet's toilet habits, but not for his own.'' 
Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that having got through 55 amendments or new clauses today, it is ridiculous that we were scheduled to deal with a further 24 clauses, two schedules, 44 amendments and one new clause in such a short time?

Nick Hawkins: I certainly agree. I opened the debate by saying that it was ludicrous that the Government have curtailed debate in such a way that the knives go in. Along with some Government Members, my hon. Friend and I remember a phrase from student politics in the 1970s, and perhaps more recently, that one could ``get knifed''. This has been a case of a proper debate on serious matters to do with criminal justice being knifed. It is outrageous that the Government have behaved in this way. I said that I would give way to the Minister, but he has so little time to intervene that I doubt that I shall have a chance to reply.

Charles Clarke: That is because the Opposition have taken up the time.
 Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether Westminster city council has adopted Home Office model byelaw set No. 8, byelaw No. 24 of which reads: 
 ``No person should urinate or defecate in any public place''?

Nick Hawkins: If the Minister had been listening, he would know that the city council said in the letter that it is proposing to introduce measures to come into force this summer. I assume—I did not know about these models, and he has armies of officials to tell him about them—that the measures described in the letter are precisely the ones that his Department recommends.
 It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business remaining to be concluded at this hour, pursuant to Sessional Order D on programming and the Order of the Committee [1 March]. 
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clauses 46 to 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - Powers of seizure

Amendments made: No. 199, in page 110, line 29, leave out `section 7(2)' and insert `sections 7(2) and 8(1)'. 
 No. 200, in page 110, line 31, after `offence' insert— 
 `or of an offence punishable in Scotland by imprisonment'. 
 No. 170, in page 111, line 37, leave out `9(2)' and insert `5(2)'. 
 No. 201, in page 112, line 28, leave out `19, 28 and 31' and insert `and 19' 
 No. 188, in page 112, line 35, at end insert— 
`Homes Act 2001 (c. 00) 
 . The power of seizure conferred by paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 1 to the Homes Act 2001.'
 No. 202, in page 113, line 35, leave out `19, 28 and 31' and insert `and 19'—[Mr. Charles Clarke.] 
 Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 - Notice of exercise of power under section 49 or 50

Amendment made: No. 191, in page 41, line 39, after `instrument' insert— 
`, after consultation with the Scottish Ministers,'.—[Mr. Clarke.]
 Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 52 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 - Retention of seized items

Amendment made: No. 169, in page 45, line 43, at end insert— 
`, ( ) paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 3 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.'.—[Mr. Clarke.]
 Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58 - Application to the appropriate judicial authority

Amendment made: No. 174, in page 47, line 3, after first `is' insert `or contains'.—[Mr. Clarke.] 
 Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 - Cases where duty to secure arises

Amendments made: No. 192, in page 49, line 10, at beginning insert— 
`in relation to England, Wales and Northern Ireland,'.
 No. 193, in page 49, line 11, after `satisfied;' insert— 
`( ) in relation to Scotland, the condition set out in subsection (2) is satisfied;'.
 No. 175, in page 49, line 14, after first `is' insert `or contains'.—[Mr. Clarke.] 
 Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 - Use of inextricably linked property

Amendment made: No. 244, in page 51, line 13, after `any' insert `investigation or'.—[Mr. Clarke.] 
 Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 62 and 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 64 - Meaning of ``legal privilege''

Amendments made: No. 194, in page 52, line 17, after `privilege'')' insert— 
`( ) for the purposes of the application of this Part to Scotland, in accordance with section 33 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1999 (interpretation)'.
 No. 185, in page 53, line 43, at end insert— 
 `( ) An item which is, or is comprised in, property which has been seized in exercise, or purported exercise, of the power of seizure conferred by sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Homes Act 2001 shall be taken for the purposes of this Part to be an item subject to legal privilege if, and only if, the seizure of that item was in contravention of sub-paragraph (5) of that paragraph (privileged documents).'.
 No. 186, in page 54, line 4, at end insert— 
`( ) paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 1 to the Homes Act 2001,'.—[Mr. Clarke.]
 Clause 64, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68 - Application to powers designated by order

Amendment made: No. 198, in page 57, line 32, at end insert— 
 `( ) Where the power designated by the order made under subsection (1) is a power conferred in relation to Scotland, the Secretary of State shall consult the Scottish Ministers before making the order.'.—[Mr. Clarke.]
 Clause 68, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 - Applications and minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: No. 171, in page 118, line 48, leave out `section' and insert `sections 434(6) and'. 
 No. 172, in page 118, line 48, leave out `Article' and insert `Articles 427(6) and'. 
 No. 173, in page 118, line 50, leave out 
`after ``it in legible form''' 
and insert `at the end'. 
 No. 203, in page 120, line 3, at end insert— 
 `( ) In section 8 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (which makes similar provision for Scotland) after subsection (6) there shall be added— 
 ``(7) Subject to subsection (8) below, the reference in subsection (2) above to evidence seized by a constable by virtue of this section shall be taken to include a reference to evidence seized by a constable by virtue of the exercise, in the course of a search authorised by a warrant issued by virtue of this section, of powers conferred by section 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. 
 (8) Nothing in subsection (7) above requires any evidence to be furnished to the Lord Advocate— 
 (a) before it has been found, on the completion of any examination required to be made by arrangements under subsection (2) of section 52 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, to be property which falls within subsection (3) of that section (property which may be retained after examination); or 
 (b) at a time when it constitutes property in respect of which a person is required to ensure that arrangements such as are mentioned in section 60(1) of that Act (duty to secure) are in force.''.'.—[Mr. Clarke.]
 Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Ten o'clock till tomorrow at half-past Ten o'clock.